directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <>
Subject Re: [release][VOTE] Releasing MINA 0.7.1
Date Mon, 16 May 2005 05:49:54 GMT
Noel J. Bergman wrote:

>Alex Karasulu wrote:

>>However I'd like to take this opportunity to clear up some potential
>>misunderstanding or miscommunication regarding our version numbers.
>>This release is not a stable (production grade) release.  A memory leak
>>is just fine for odd minor numbered releases.
>This use of odd/even numbering to have a quality semantic may well be
>confusing to people.  The HTTP server project mentions alpha, beta and GA
>releases.  Jakarta projects refer to "builds", as in nightly, milestone,
>beta and Release.  A "Release Build" is like a GA release.  I'd suggest
>considering one of those, or something in reasonably common usage.
We actually did consider these other models from a number of 
classifications.  Surprisingly we were diligent this one time :) and 
researched the release models before selecting one.  We did not invent 
this even/odd model, the Linux Kernel community did.  For example, one 
of several influencial peices of research we encountered, was from our 
very own Justin Erenkrantz.  Justin's paper[1] helped finalize our 
decision to adopting the Linux Kernel model.

Even minor numbers for kernels like 1.2, 1.4, 2.2, 2.4 ... etc represent 
stable kernel releases.  Odd ones like the 1.3, 2.3 and 2.5 kernels 
represent unstable releases of the kernel due mostly to new feature 
additions.  Immediately I know the stability of the kernel by its minor 
release version number.  The minor number is really a branch number.   
Justin sites these benefits and talks about others as well in his paper.

I agree people don't immediately know off the bat which model we use.  
Regardless of the release model selected, we still have to tell users 
about it.  It is best to stick to whatever model we have chosen and 
educate users.   The model makes little difference to us however 
rehashing the release model once it has been chosen does cost us in 
terms of enegy and confusion. 



View raw message