maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul Benedict" <pbened...@apache.org>
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

http://incubator.apache.org/learn/rules-for-revolutionaries.html

Paul

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org> 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
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org


Mime
View raw message