logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What will the GA version number be?
Date Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:46:08 GMT
Plus, if we're really keen on OSGi support, note that OSGi assumes version
numbers follow the semantic versioning scheme. Producers use an API like
[1.1, 1.2), whereas consumers use an API like [1.1, 2.0). Yes, those are
half-open intervals, and yes, that is the official notation. :)


On 3 February 2014 15:41, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3 Feb 2014, at 22:14, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> > I like 2.0.0 because semver.org etc., although as long as it's not a
> dumb
> > version number like GA or RELEASE or Final, I'm happy with it.
>
> Sticking with semver might be a good idea. Its a language many understand
> and we should try to stick with that lanugage as well.
>
> >
> >
> > On 3 February 2014 07:07, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Keep it simple: 2.0.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Original message --------
> >> From: Christian Grobmeier
> >> Date:02/03/2014 05:12 (GMT-05:00)
> >> To: Log4J Developers List
> >> Subject: Re: What will the GA version number be?
> >>
> >> Also 2.0 or 2.0.0 for me
> >>
> >> On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
> >>
> >>> I had thought it would be 2.0.
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 2, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Nick Williams
> >>>> <nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm finalizing the logging chapter of my book to send to the printers
> >>>> Wednesday (I'm so glad I got to correct it to say Level was
> >>>> extendable!), and I need to know what the Maven artifact GA version
> >>>> number will be. I print the new Maven artifacts used in each chapter
> >>>> on the first page of the chapter as a guide to the user. Log4j is the
> >>>> only library I'm using that isn't yet GA. I want to be sure the
> >>>> version numbers I'm printing are correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are the options that I can think of for the GA release:
> >>>>
> >>>> 2.0
> >>>> 2.0-GA
> >>>> 2.0.GA
> >>>> 2.0.Final
> >>>> 2.0.RELEASE
> >>>> 2.0.0
> >>>> 2.0.0-GA
> >>>> 2.0.0.GA
> >>>> 2.0.0.Final
> >>>> 2.0.0.RELEASE
> >>>>
> >>>> So, which is it going to be? I assume that eventually we're going to
> >>>> have a 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc., so it would seem to me that, whatever GA
> >>>> is, it should start with 2.0.0. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense
> >>>> to go from 2.0 to 2.0.1. However, all of our beta releases have been
> >>>> 2.0-Betan.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> Nick
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
> >> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
> >> @grobmeier
> >> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>
>
> ---
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
> @grobmeier
> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

Mime
View raw message