harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nathan Beyer" <ndbe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Date Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:06:08 GMT
Of all the suggested version, I'd vote for - Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1.

If we have to worry about the name we could replace Java SE with "JSE"
or "java se".

After the full release, we'll have to do something like "update 1" or
whatever, so the run would look something like this, I guess.

Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M1
Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M2
Apache Harmony Java SE 5 M3
...
Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R1 (official release)
...
Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R2 (update/fix)
Apache Harmony Java SE 5 R3 (update/fix)

I'd also be cool with using 'alpha 1' and 'beta 1' instead of Mx.

-Nathan


On 3/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:23 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > On 3/8/07, Alex Blewitt <alex.blewitt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 08/03/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we
> >> don't
> >> > > get confused in the future. Apache Harmony 1.0M1 would make
> >> sense, or
> >> > > if we want to sync with the proposed Java versioning numbers then
> >> > > Apache Harmony 5.0M1 might make sense.
> >> >
> >> > Please not 1.0M1.  Please please please.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > another reason: once you start publishing 1.0XXX releases, the world
> > outside tends (wrongly) to think that harmony is at 1.0
>
> That describes it fairly well for me.  I've experienced this in other
> places, and tagging anything w/ a 1.0 sets an expectation.
>
> I'm far happier to manage expectations than have them managed for me,
> so to speak.
>
> For me, I'd put the 1.0 on it when we have an "alpha", or "beta" or
> "rc1" - when we're doing TCK, have a handle on what needs to be done,
> and getting close to seeing 'all green' in the TCK tools.
>
> For now, I can live w/ fractions (0.5), but there is a problem there
> - I've seen projects that did that and got onto what I jokingly refer
> to an asymptotic approach to 1.0, such as
>
>     0.91
>     0.915
>     0.92
>     0.92333444222
>
> :)
>
> I think castor had that problem.  Always "almost there".
>
> Unlike something like, say, Apache Velocity, where we could decide
> "Aw hell, lets call it 1.0", we have a hard boundary at the moment
> before we go 1.0, namely Java SE 5 compatibility.  So I want to avoid
> being forced into naming contortions.  That's why I proposed names.
>
> geir
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message