geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick McGuire <>
Subject Re: Spec release numbers
Date Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:14:17 GMT
On 4/6/2010 10:34 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Should we do like the server releases?
> The first new major release uses 2 digits and any follow-on maintenance
> releases introduce the third digit, like -
>    2.1, then 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, ....
For now, I'd like to focus on the central question I asked originally, 
which was about getting some consistency in the spec version numbering.  
I like Donald's suggestion.  If implemented, here are the things that 
would change:

Changing from 1.0.0 to 1.0:


NOTE:  If the changes goes the other way (1.0 changed to 1.0.0), a 
larger number of specs need to be changed.

Changing from 2-digit release numbers to 3 digit:

geronimo-jaspic_1.0_spec (changes from 1.1 to 1.0.1)
geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec (changes from 1.1 to 1.0.1)
geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec (changes from 1.7 to 1.0.7).  A corresponding 
change will be made with the provider and uber jar.
geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec (changes from 1.1 to 1.0.1)

I'd like to start the release process for the spec jars very early next 
week, so I'd like to make this change this week.  If there are no 
objections to these changes, I'll make them tomorrow morning.


> Bigger question, is what does OSGi want?  When we set version ranges
> like [1.0,2.0) does having 1.0 vs. 1.0.1 artifacts matter?
> -Donald
> On 4/6/10 10:05 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>> I've been going through and doing some release dry runs on the spec
>> projects, and I've noticed that there is an inconsistency with the
>> release numbering.  Some of the projects use a two level release number
>> (e.g., 1.0), while others use a three level numbering system (e.g.,
>> 1.0.0).  It would be nice to make these consistent, and since we're
>> going to be releasing most of these shortly, now seems like a good time
>> to do this.
>> So, the question I have is which system should we use?  Many projects
>> use a 3-level system, but in the case of the specs, I don't believe we
>> ever really use the middle digit when 3 levels are used.  That generally
>> would only occur when there are functional enhancements to the spec,
>> which generally results in a new subproject getting created to reflect
>> the spec number change.
>> So, should we:
>> [] Convert everything to two-digits
>> [] Convert everything to three-digits
>> [] Leave things the way they are
>> If the consensus is we're fine the way we are, then the next question is
>> whether we should be using two or three digits for newly created spec
>> projects.
>> Rick

View raw message