harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Date Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:07:27 GMT
On 3/8/07, Alex Blewitt <alex.blewitt@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/03/07, robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/8/07, 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.
> >
> > less confusing (in the long run) and more future proof not to use
> > version monikers
> >
> > the traditional 0.x is a good approach for most open source projects
> > (when pushing towards a 1.0) but IMHO harmony needs milestones and so
> > adopting a 0.x version numbering system wouldn't work very well.
>
> I completely disagree with your views.

there's quite a few points in a short space. which ones do you disagree with?

> > > Please not 1.0M1.  Please please please.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > there are lots of reasons not to use versions numbers for this kind of release
> >
> > here's one example: 1.0M1 confuses automatic dependency management systems
>
> Please. Give me one system that can't handle a major/minor/qualifier
> version number.

AIUI maven and ivy both think that 1.0M1 comes after 1.0

(this is also true of many users)

- robert

Mime
View raw message