directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Trustin Lee" <trus...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Versioning scheme
Date Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:05:10 GMT
On 10/29/06, peter royal <proyal@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 2006, at 4:18 PM, Trustin Lee wrote:
> > I think 1.1 can't become 2.0 logically.
>
> why not? its just a number :)
>
> > The issue I'm raising is that we don't have a way to express the
> > state before 2.0.
>
> sure, its any odd number < 2.0 :)
>
> > The compromise is to use 1.5 or something similar, but is it the
> > best way?
>
> i think so.
>
> version numbers are really arbitrary, and can descend into a total
> bike-shed discussion. what we have works.. and if we can help
> perceptions by picking an odd version that's > 1.1 for the next dev
> release, that's fine with me.
>
> for another point of reference, lucene had a stable 1.4, did a 1.9
> development release, then released 2.0. basically same as we're
> proposing, except s/1.9/1.5/.


Actually, I talked about using 1.9 with Alex before, and he said that '9' is
not the last number and we might have '999'.  I think that's the point I
started to get crazy about this issue.  :D

I am very fine with 1.9 because '9' has a very clear meaning.

Trustin
-- 
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
PGP key fingerprints:
* E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41  4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E
* B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4  455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6

Mime
View raw message