incubator-jspwiki-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Janne Jalkanen <>
Subject Re: JSPWiki 2.8.0 branch
Date Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:03:13 GMT

I know, that's what we've been doing for a long time now.  But it  
feels kinda stupid, because with 2.8 it went like this:


So we ended up in a situation that the 2.7.x never really existed,  
and we never really used those numbers for anything.  It just served  
as a "tag" for the build number.  It made more sense when the build  
number was the MINORREVISION.

The other problem is that for stable versions development versions  
are marked differently, since they are at "next version-svn-xx",  
where xx is the build number.  E.g. after 2.8.0 stable release we  
have 2.8.1-svn-1, which reads as "the first svn build of 2.8.1".

However, if we keep 2.9 in the loop somewhere, the same logic does  
not apply, since 2.9.0-svn-1 is "the first svn build of 2.9.0, except  
that 2.9.0 will never exist as a release, and it's really the first  
svn build of 3.0.0, but we're not just calling it that, because of...  
some reason."

(As a note: the Linux kernel, from which this even-odd alternating  
was originally copied from, stopped doing it because it was too  
confusing to people, and they developed a better development model  
which didn't require it anymore.)


On 16 Oct 2008, at 22:47, Andrew Jaquith wrote:

> I had sort of thought we were doing the system where the dev-  
> versions were odd-numbered, and the released ones were 3.0.
> That would make the next branch the 2.9 version -- and when it's  
> ready to go 3.0, we bump it up to that number.
> On Oct 16, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
>>> There are a couple of fixes targeted for 2.8.1 now, can I commit  
>>> them now,
>>> or wait until 2.8.0 is released ?
>> Let's wait until 2.8.0 is released.  I don't want to deal with  
>> *three* branches ;-)
>>> What is the release number to use now, continue with the current  
>>> scheme ( =>
>>> v2.8.0-beta-22) ?
>> The first version in the branch will be 2.8.1-svn-1.
>> Trunk... I don't know.  Should we just simply use 3.0.0-svn-1 and  
>> skip the confusing 2.9 numbering?  After all, we never had e.g. a  
>> 2.7.1, but they were all 2.7.0-svn-xx.
>> /Janne

View raw message