incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: Yoko version... (WAS: RE: Steps for hitting a Milestone release (WAS: RE: Milestone release))
Date Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:46:34 GMT
I've created 1.0-incubating-M1.  I guess we should update the POMS.

P.S. I'm assuming that everyone is cool w/ this.  It's trivial to undo.


Regards,
Alan



Sakala, Adinarayana wrote:
> Here is the official answer from maven team on the topic of version.
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/200606.mbox/%3cPine.LNX.4.58.0606140259520.4265@fire.homenet.neonics.com%3e
>
> Essentially David's suggestion is right. 
>   1.0-incubating-M1 < 1.0 < 1.0-1
>
> So, since now Alan is sold on :) having the word "incubating",
> Shall we adopt the version being "1.0-incubating-M1"?
>
> thanks,
> Adi
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sakala, Adinarayana 
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:29 AM
>> To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Yoko version... (WAS: RE: Steps for hitting a Milestone
>> release (WAS: RE: Milestone release))
>>
>>
>> Thanks David.
>>     
>>> I'm not sure I'm entirely accurate here, however I'm sure 
>>>       
>> that x.y.z- 
>>     
>>> incubating is before x.y.z
>>>
>>>   This is discussed in "Better builds with maven" page 59.
>>>       
>> What is the best way to confirm this?
>> David/somebody want to confirm it with Maven dev team?
>>
>> I really hope this is true because, we are definetley not at 
>> 0.1 release, In my opinion Yoko is very close to 1.0 because 
>> we have a real working and stable CORBA Server.
>>
>> Waiting to confirm from Maven team, Lets see if we all can 
>> agree to version as,
>>   "1.0-M1"
>>
>> thanks,
>> adi
>>
>>     
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Jencks [mailto:david_jencks@yahoo.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:11 PM
>>> To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Yoko version... (WAS: RE: Steps for hitting a Milestone
>>> release (WAS: RE: Milestone release))
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 12, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> I assume this is maven2 we're talking about...
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is that
>>>>>
>>>>> x.y.z-alphabetic
>>>>> precedes
>>>>> x.y.z
>>>>> which precedes
>>>>> x.y.z-numeric
>>>>>           
>>>> Is this documented someplace?
>>>>         
>>> I'm not sure I'm entirely accurate here, however I'm sure 
>>>       
>> that x.y.z- 
>>     
>>> incubating is before x.y.z
>>>
>>>   This is discussed in "Better builds with maven" page 59.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>>   I went thought most of the "mini guides" on
>>>> the maven website and didn't see anything which is why I 
>>>>         
>>> raised the  
>>>       
>>>> concern.
>>>> I'd rather not rely on undocumented behavior that just 
>>>>         
>> happens to  
>>     
>>>> do what we
>>>> want.   Then again, much of maven's behavior falls into that  
>>>> category.  :-(
>>>> (honestly, I LIKE maven, but sometimes, all you can do is just  
>>>> shake your
>>>> head and wonder.....)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Thus 1.0-SNAPSHOT is before 1.0, and build 1 (1.0-1) is 
>>>>>           
>> after 1.0.
>>     
>>>> SNAPSHOT's are special cases as you need to explicitly enable  
>>>> them.  My
>>>> understanding is the -SNAPHOST tail is treated completely 
>>>>         
>> special  
>>     
>>>> so that
>>>> they can be completely turned off, the release plugin can "flag"  
>>>> them, etc...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> My suggestion is to just play it safe and make sure the first
>>>>>>> "#.#" is there
>>>>>>> and is incremented in some fassion for each release.
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> So, its sounds like going with your suggestion is a better idea.
>>>>>> i.e 0.1-incubating-M1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any objections to this change?
>>>>>>             
>>>>> If this contains pretty much the intended feature set for 
>>>>>           
>>> 1.0, I'd go
>>>       
>>>>> with 1.0-incubating-M1.  If there's enormous missing 
>>>>>           
>> functionality,
>>     
>>>>> 0.1-incubating-M1 seems more appropriate.  I was under the 
>>>>>           
>>> impression
>>>       
>>>>> that the former was more accurate :-)
>>>>>           
>>>> Ok, how about 0.9-incubating-M1?  :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> J. Daniel Kulp
>>>> Principal Engineer
>>>> IONA
>>>> P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194   F:781-902-8001
>>>> daniel.kulp@iona.com
>>>>         
>>>       


Mime
View raw message