felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Pauls <karlpa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Felix framework 2.0.3 and related subproject releases
Date Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:13:03 GMT
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Karl Pauls <karlpauls@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 09.02.2010 20:13, Karl Pauls wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the framework and bundlerepository do not follow our
>>>> convention of using even release numbers (not a big issue and certainly
>>>> not a showstopper), but something to care for the next releases to come.
>>>
>>> Do we have the convention for micro releases too? We never followed
>>> that for any release I did... Only for minor release numbers its the
>>> odd/even game but not for micro releases no?
>>
>> The point is that discrepancy between Maven's version number
>> interpreation of x.y.z-SNAPSHOT and OSGi's interpretation of the
>> converted number x.y.z.SNAPSHOT. In Maven the SNAPSHOT version is
>> "lower" than the x.y.z release version. In OSGi the SNAPSHOT version is
>> higher.
>>
>> Therefore we started a convetion of having odd SNAPSHOTs (like
>> 1.4.3-SNAPSHOT) and even releases (like 1.4.4) to ensure proper
>> linearity. I initially proposed this for micro version only, Richard
>> extended this to minor versions.
>>
>> To me it is mostly important, that the release version is higher than a
>> SNAPSHOT version in OSGi understanding...
>
> Well, right, but that is why we as of now did it a little different
> for the framework. We develop against 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT at the moment.
> That will not be released but become 2.2.0 (or higher). If we along
> the way see the need to make a micro release we do one but that should
> be lower as the 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT and we never had a 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT. In
> other words we have 2.0.2 < 2.0.3 < 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT < 2.2. I think that
> is correct as well - it would be different if we had a 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT
> at one point in time but as we didn't we don't have a problem, no?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't change this
approach and if we really voted on this in the past then I'm sorry for
not remembering. All I wanted to point out is that I think this
approach follows your idea too. If you think we should find a common
approach then we probably should open a new topic and stop talking on
the release vote :-)

regards,

Karl

> regards,
>
> Karl
>
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Felix
>>>>
>>>> On 07.02.2010 22:30, Karl Pauls wrote:
>>>>> I would like to call a vote on the following subproject releases:
>>>>>
>>>>> shell 1.4.2
>>>>> bundlerepository 1.4.3
>>>>> framework  2.0.3
>>>>> framework.security 1.0.0
>>>>> main 2.0.3
>>>>>
>>>>> Staging repository:
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefelix-001/
>>>>>
>>>>> You can use this UNIX script to download the release and verify the signatures:
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/check_staged_release.sh
>>>>>
>>>>> Usage:
>>>>> sh check_staged_release.sh 001 /tmp/felix-staging
>>>>>
>>>>> Please vote to approve this release:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>>>>> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Karl Pauls
> karlpauls@gmail.com
>



-- 
Karl Pauls
karlpauls@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message