directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jesse McConnell <>
Subject Re: Project versioning and OSGi
Date Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:36:31 GMT
Something we have learned with Jetty and our adoption of osgi versioning is
that most anything beyond normal versioning really confuses people.  We
have had an embarrassing amount of people think a M# release (supposedly
milestone) was suitable for production and that our actual releases
X.Y.Z.v20170814 looked too like a timestamp and they thought it was some
sort of maven snapshot.  I don't even want to think what people think RC#
means.  Personally I don't see how this sort of confusion is possible, but
I saw you folks messing around with osgi versioning and figured I would
chime in with some advice to keep it as simple as possible and as much as
possible remove any doubt as to what stage of development an artifact is.
Anything outside of the normal X.Y.Z and people seem to get easily confused.

And avoid P2 repositories unless you have some arcane requirement.


jesse mcconnell

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Shawn McKinney <>

> > On Aug 13, 2017, at 3:04 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <>
> wrote:
> >
> > The issue with our scheme is that if we cut a release and call it 2.0.0,
> > it will always be seen as inferior to any milstone of RC we created
> > beforhand.
> >
> How does this issue present itself as a problem?  What are the
> ramifications of this problem?
> What I’m asking, is this a problem (only) with OSGI related processes, or
> does it extend outside to things like maven, git, or human-based reasoning?
> > I suggest we modify teh wy we name our versions in a way that is not
> > intrusive :
> >
> > - release will not be plain numbers, like 2.0.0, but 2.0.0.GA
> >
> > - Milestone will be named AM (A does not stand for anything, it's just
> > used to make sure it's lower than CR and GA)
> >
> > - Release Candidate CR (instead of RC). The rational is that AMn < CRn <
> > GA, so 2.0.0.AM3 < 2.0.0.CR1 < 2.0.0.GA. It's a convention, and I kno
> The current versioning scheme is simple, intuitive and fits fortress’
> needs quite well.  Must we change as well?
> Thanks,
> Shawn

View raw message