maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul Benedict" <>
Subject Re: Versioning Maven (was: Re: Maven 2.1 development IRC roundtable)
Date Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:24:47 GMT
Is TRUNK really 3.0? Hmm.. Maybe not. I think it is only appropriate
to bump the first number when you make a major architecture change. It
was totally appropriate between 1.x and 2.x because the code bases are
absolutely incompatible. Why I should believe the same for TRUNK now?
It still looks like 2.1 -- evolution -- not 3.0 -- revolution. Let's
not forget this famous popular Apache email


On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Brett Porter <> wrote:
> On 08/08/2008, at 5:45 AM, John Casey wrote:
>> This is exactly why I'd like to put the current trunk code on the path of
>> being released as 3.0. We have tons of things that could reasonably be
>> improved in 2.0.x, but aren't really appropriate in such a minor release as
>> 2.0.11. We could move toward larger feature introductions like import scope
>> in a more appropriate manner if we were to put those things into a 2.1.x
>> release. We might be able to put a limit on the lifespan of 2.0.x at the
>> same time, and only release regression fixes to that branch, and start
>> working on intermediary efforts to improve Maven from its 2.0.x baseline
>> without having to accommodate/wait for a full-blown rewrite of all these
>> major subsystems.
> I'm totally in favour of this.
> Toolchains was the best example of how a feature can be well executed on the
> 2.0.x codebase. There's also the parallel downloads as Wendy mentioned, and
> that is mostly the kind of thing I'd like to focus on.
> There are other things that would just be a complete mess to try and
> implement there (for example, the checksum verification from the repository
> security proposal), and I'd much rather track Mercury and get involved there
> at the opportune time for that.
> As long as features and fixes come with integration tests that can be run
> against 3.0 we can keep feature parity.
> Cheers,
> Brett
> --
> Brett Porter
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message