Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.247 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=kd5v5VlXeOGFrLYcAY3MeuMEqyfe8xR+SPzz/v1xyf6TUZ6bEUO1JJEO2Ng55Gd3KxN3S6MCpxq1nRCLlMicRhmE55+yKeuBX+PsQplacXi3rkKu5KJqH+t7tBpbp5K54m6WO3XybPuHsL4QB4buuGcNAygCCvLby1MgJCsWVKI=
Message-ID: <f470f68e0703081407t21497c05r8648637f5f5c2b59@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:07:27 +0000
From: "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
In-Reply-To: <636fd28e0703081352t56d8271cj77105a57574d5769@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <8EBB11B7-4056-4449-9798-CE9D0850DF9C@pobox.com>
	 <fc2fc95c0703080205g7f3d5250q974bf65b65bddb3a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <38ADFC98-F826-4159-B9A3-D48A5B521459@pobox.com>
	 <636fd28e0703080903p1867a069w9cab5d9e14f49dd0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <2F550B04-4478-4C3C-841F-180B2AA950CB@pobox.com>
	 <636fd28e0703081127g3ca135e7m5dd1e31d114be4d1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <FA92EB72-A8CD-4F7B-81B5-03074F24351E@pobox.com>
	 <f470f68e0703081329tf9615c1he740b744f894481e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <636fd28e0703081352t56d8271cj77105a57574d5769@mail.gmail.com>

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