directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot" ...@marcelot.net>
Subject Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme
Date Mon, 28 May 2007 08:07:26 GMT
[X] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me

Sounds good.

P-A M.


On 5/27/07, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> I think series is 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 ...  There will be no version numbers
> other than those in this series like say 1.7.  This way we can jump up to
> higher version numbers quicker which I think shows well the maturity level
> of the software.
>
> Alex
>
> On 5/27/07, Chris Custine <chris.custine@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [x] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
> >
> > Sounds good to me guys.  One thing that wasn't clear to me though, are
> > we literally talking about 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 progression or are you
> > talking about any non whole number (like 1.5, 1.6, 1.7) for transitional
> > versions?  Either way is fine with me, I just wanted to make sure I
> > understood correctly.
> >
> > I like it, lets go for it.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/25/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > we have had many mails exchanged, many convo at ApacheCon EU this
> > > month,
> > > about which is the best versionning scheme for ADS. Strange enough,
> > > after a first burst of idea, things just cool down a little bit.
> > >
> > > We now have to make a decision, though this vote.
> > >
> > > Lately, there was some kind of agreement about this scheme :
> > >
> > > - X.0 versions will be stable versions (like 1.0.2)
> > >
> > > - X.5 versions will be transitonal versions, which means some more
> > > featurzes can be included (like 1.5.1)
> > >
> > > - (X+1).0 version will be the next stable version (like 2.0.1)
> > >
> > > - When (X+1) version is issued, then the X version will be terminated
> > > (no more evolution, only important bug fixes)
> > >
> > > - X.0 and X.5 version might be tested against VSLDAP compliance, if
> > > needed
> > >
> > > - Data migration between X.0 and (X+1).0 should be automated, when
> > > data
> > > migration between X.0 and X.5 might not be done with a tool.
> > >
> > > - But when migrating for X.5 to (X+1).0, then a tool *must* be
> > > included
> > > to guarantee data migration.
> > >
> > > Ok, the vote now:
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
> > > [ ] +/- 0 : I have no idea, or I don't share this idea, but better
> > > this
> > > one than no scheme
> > > [ ] -1 : Not a good idea.
> > >
> > > Please, feel free to comment your choice, because we will have to give
> > > an explaination to our users !
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot !
> > > Emmanuel
> > >
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message