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 22:39:43 GMT
On 3/8/07, Alex Blewitt <alex.blewitt@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/03/07, robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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)
> That's not the same thing as can't handle. If 1.0M1 is considered >
> 1.0, then don't have 1.0, but rather 1.0Z or 1.0.0M1 and 1.0.1M1.

IMO it would confusing to call the first full harmony release 1.0Z

IHMO it would be better to avoid this problem by not using that numbering system

> OSGi
> bundles have exactly the same semantics as this and no-one's ever
> complained about that yet.

that's a very categorical statement

i've had plenty of complaints over the years about apache releases
following the above pattern. apache releases are preserved for as long
as the foundation lives. badly named milestones can't simply be

typically, the problems happen months or years down the line.
automatic dependency tools or users get confused by the load of 1.x.y
releases most of which were never intended for long term support. if
you're lucky, you just get complaints from users. if you're unlucky
other source projects start depending on releases with subtly
different and incompatible semantics.

- robert

View raw message