directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Alderson <Martin.Alder...@salfordsoftware.co.uk>
Subject RE: [ApacheDS] How about yet another versioning scheme conversation gang?
Date Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:37:04 GMT
Hi guys,

To clarify, do we go from e.g. 2.2.6 to 2.3.0, 2.3.6 or 2.3.7?  It doesn't really matter but
I just wanted to make sure I understand.

Some thoughts...

Is the minor number just there to indicate to users that shiny new features have been added
to ApacheDS?  Does it give them a way to avoid those new features (i.e. if the user is only
interested in bug fixes)?

If bug fixes are only released for the latest minor version then the only way for users to
get those bug fixes is to also get the latest new feature which might break backwards compatibility.

If you are going to maintain a separate branch just for bug fixes is that just for the 0 minor
version i.e. 2.0.X like it is now?  So people who are on 2.1.X will have to upgrade to 2.2.X
etc to keep up with the big fixes?

When you release ApacheDS 3 do you abandon ApacheDS 2 so users must upgrade to take advantage
of the latest bug fixes? 

I think it is very important for any changes that require the user to do something other than
just upgrade be well labelled and avoidable without compromising the security or stability
of the server.  For that I think you need at least two main branches as you have now (1.0.X
and 1.5.X), one for serious bug fixes and one for new backwards compatibility breaking functionality.

The question is what to do with the other changes that don't break backwards compatibility
and aren't security / stability fixes.  Assuming we don't want to maintain more than 2 branches
these changes need to be grouped with one of them. 

Apologies if that all came across a bit muddled or unfinished - gotta run!

Martin


Mime
View raw message