directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme
Date Sun, 27 May 2007 16:57:41 GMT
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