directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <aok...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: Versioning scheme
Date Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:27:30 GMT
peter royal wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2006, at 6:05 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
>> MINA is going to move to Java 5, and thus its major
>> version number should be 2 ( i.e. 2.0.0), but we can't go to 2.0 
>> because the
>> minor version number 0 means 'stable'.  So we are talking about using the
>> version number 1.5 or 1.9, but I think it's very weird because we've 
>> changed
>> our platform.
>>
>> WDYT?
> 
> I'm fine with not disturbing the even/odd thing, and would prefer not to.
> 
> 1.1 is the next development version. It can be 2.0 when its released. 
> Anything wrong with that?
> 

In short nothing is wrong with that approach but it may lead to some 
confusion.  Let me explain ...

You bring up a very good point.  1.1.0 is a development release and 
should not be used in production and is meant for evaluating new 
features, testing and feedback.  2.0 is the official release and that's 
got the big jump in version number we're looking for to make it clear 
that there was a big change in the supported JDK platforms as well as 
API and other features.

However people are still going to use 1.1.x releases because they want 
the new features and may risk dealing with the instability in production.

So yeah 1.1 is fine for *us* as the next dev branch for java 5 and up. 
We can do dev releases 1.1.x from there with each introducing new 
features until we decide to stabilize and release 2.0.

For those few who do push 1.1.x releases into production you might want 
to send them a clear message that something big has changed even in this 
dev version from the get go.  That's why I think there was this 
recommendation to jump to 1.5.  Otherwise these guys are going to drop 
1.1 into their JDK 1.4 apps in production and have a big surprise.

I think we can mix a little of what everyone is saying and arrive at a 
great result.  What about bumping the next dev branch to 1.5 and 
releasing 2.0 right afterwards?

Really we would not have this issue (hence all this conversation) if it 
was not for giving up 1.4 compatibility.  We have to do the same thing 
for ApacheDS as well.

Alex



Mime
View raw message