Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 21146 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2010 14:06:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 6 Apr 2010 14:06:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 91610 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2010 14:06:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 91546 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2010 14:06:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 91539 invoked by uid 99); 6 Apr 2010 14:06:11 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:06:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,HK_RANDOM_FROM,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rickmcg@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.182 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.83.182] (HELO mail-pv0-f182.google.com) (74.125.83.182) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:06:02 +0000 Received: by pvc7 with SMTP id 7so2547157pvc.13 for ; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:05:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ffjDCbVTNtlhbrLTZJJOWo249euPk29D7vyJMt4PaI8=; b=TpSmppGbOPt+Zyn44jJapWiTuEoFIwqRWlxeeXXxbo0aK2Zv00L46KonABcAAzUanG 90zd3mghBywHWLhNyvfDOJkqbpz0mIyVm1w3/HY4QUhGZrjBPmJrwj7cUhIfnWRljEM6 QyuonphaDpaVlat9/x1QGUikxZJ+qKUwK2zYU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bFR+k5ZsxbNR+rMtOU0/6VMr/R8mkpOjvQfRHOtuGp5D1/2hFS4h9IQeiw/PFFUTbi Bdg4dANrE+dC72XY+LCcWuo8Uq7u2hBfub2gF7GxBewxD+zAIpW0veA2X8vJnsLud4YA 2ghtE+iRsLjz4kVNQZvLVpeOn5O6c0Tfk+FWw= Received: by 10.115.28.1 with SMTP id f1mr6447698waj.181.1270562740482; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:05:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (24-151-82-15.dhcp.nwtn.ct.charter.com [24.151.82.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm2484984iwn.4.2010.04.06.07.05.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:05:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BBB3FB1.40500@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:05:37 -0400 From: Rick McGuire Reply-To: rickmcg@gmail.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Geronimo Dev Subject: Spec release numbers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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