Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jchris@gmail.com designates
 74.125.44.30 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=t3FZSq9ffY548NhFeJXVDbbZl280rkQOp85w79hi7V0eDyT11fW8NlY1dzffwfj9Nc
         LjTedn9+j4m5AVeA7+vXpjJNTvzjJsPES1/JGF+MHU0de4EUua1y+BAvB+8RQ3yHTUes
         Cw98CuPdHZeh7n/S1XJypv+Wt9TG48roj//VQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jchris@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <49FFB420.6000706@gmail.com>
References: <e282921e0905041832j40bcf06ax1476d97cd81df71f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090505013709.GB24571@tumbolia.org> <49FFB420.6000706@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 20:42:12 -0700
Message-ID: <e282921e0905042042g2780761l6c52f1962fc823e8@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Release 0.9.1
From: Chris Anderson <jchris@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Noah Slater wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 06:32:04PM -0700, Chris Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Are we ready for 0.9.1? My pet patch is in and backported, how about
>>> yours?
>>>
>>
>> Mine are done.
>>
>>
>
> Prefacing with: Version names are called $(MAJOR).$(MINOR).$(REVISION)
>
> I am so confused!
>
> Damien convinced me pretty well that $(REVISION) numbers should only get
> bumped when we're backporting a fix for a bug that shouldn't be in that
> $(MINOR) version number. Ie, end user code wouldn't have to change. I'm
> definitely guilty of backporting code that would break client code based on
> error reporting strictness etc, but adding new features definitely seems
> greater than $(REVISION) changing importance.
>
> So, I feel that I'm entirely over-thinking this entire issue, but at the
> moment I'd probably lean towards releasing 0.10.0 from trunk as opposed to a
> new $(REVISION) release. Either way we should probably try and codify the
> rules for backporting and put up a wiki page with some guidance on when we
> do what. My first litmus test is "If it's visible from a client library
> perspective, it's at least a $(MINOR) revision change without overwhelming
> support."
>

I think we're pretty clearly not ready for 0.10.0

If there's breaking changes between 0.9.0 and the 0.9.x branch, they
should be reverted, as some users may decide to track the 0.9.x branch
to avoid just those as they appear in trunk.

> Anyway, that's just my two hundredths of a greenback.
>
> Paul Davis
>
>
>


-- 
Chris Anderson
http://jchrisa.net
http://couch.io