directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: [ApacheDS] Release versioning scheme.
Date Mon, 24 May 2010 09:17:26 GMT
Hi guys,

I didn't had time to rply to Alex' mail. Here it is :

On 5/24/10 10:14 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> I don't insist on those milestone releases. I just find them useful in
> this case to be able to release fast, even if not everything is
> finished, and to avoid that users think everything is polished.
> Anyway, I totally agree with all your other points. So let's go on.
> Kind Regards,
> Stefan
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Stefan Seelmann<
>> <>>  wrote:
>>      Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>      >  Yes this scheme is much more appealing. However I'm not into this
>>      >  milestone designation. I don't really see the point (perhaps someone
>>      >  might show me in this thread). Let me explain my thinking below.
>>      >
>>      >  To me you either have a release or you don't release. With the httpd
>>      >  scheme above you have no need for milestone releases because 2.0.0,
>>      >  2.1.0, 2.2.0 ... X.Y.0 are milestones in that they introduce new
>>      No sure about that, httpd released a 2.3.5-alpha
>> Hmmm OK I didn't know that. Regardless though I think the designation is
>> unnecessary. The new minor release number inherently represents
>> something that has changed by adding new features which may destabilize
>> the software. We don't really know how much and if that amount means
>> give it an alpha flag. How alpha is alpha?
>> Plus with certain tooling this -alpha designator might be an issue. Why
>> bother dealing with the risk?
We can either go for Milestone or Minor versions. That does not make a 
lot of difference to me. The only big difference from the user 
perspective is that Milestone are more or less seen as not production 
ready. This is the way Eclipse work, but they have a much strict 
roadmap, something we don't have.
>> </snip>
>> I think we should just release the 2.0.0 in 3 weeks and let people go
>> wild with it.
I don't favor this option though. We will have major refactoring if we 
release what we have as a 2.0. Here, the message will be : "eh, guys, we 
are ready" when we are not. I would rather go for a 2.0-RC1 like we did 
for 1.0, as we had many opportunities to fix many serious issues.

Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message