openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: version numbers
Date Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:12:57 GMT
+1 on prepending 0. to the current version numbers.

More below.

On Aug 29, 2006, at 9:35 PM, Pinaki Poddar wrote:

> Neat idea.
> +1.
>
>
> Pinaki Poddar
> BEA Systems
> 415.402.7317
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Linskey
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:01 PM
> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: version numbers
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts about the questions posed below? In
> particular, I haven't heard a peep about issues > 1.
>
> Marc Prud'hommeaux proposed an interesting alternate to solution 2b --
> we could prefix all the current @since tags with '0.', so that the old
> Kodo version information is still accessible (i.e., we'd have @since
> 0.3.3 for things that were introduced in Kodo 3.3).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Patrick
>
> --
> Patrick Linskey
> BEA Systems, Inc.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick Linskey
>> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 9:59 AM
>> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: version numbers
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some questions about version numbers:
>>
>> 1. Is it true that we should keep the OpenJPA version number below  
>> 1.0
>
>> until we get out of incubation?

I don't think it matters at all. We can cut a release in the  
incubator or wait until after graduation. I wouldn't tie the version  
number to whether we're still in incubation or not.
>>
>>
>> 2. The @since tags in the OpenJPA javadocs are currently all relative
>> to Kodo version numbers (i.e., the most recent ones say @since 4.1,
>> etc.).
>> How do we want to rectify this? Options:
>>
>> a) Move OpenJPA's version number up to 4.1 as soon as it comes out of
>> incubation.
>>
>> b) The Reverse Emacs. Toss a 1 onto the beginning, so that 4.1  
>> becomes
>
>> 1.4.1.
>>
>> c) Ignore the problem. There's nothing to see here.
>>
>> d) Remove all the @since tags, and start afresh.
>>
>>
>> 3. Should we be striving to keep the version numbers of the various
>> sub-modules in sync, or should each get a separate version number
>> moving forward?

I'd think keeping them in sync makes the most sense. I don't get the  
idea that the components are completely independent of each other. If  
you make a change in a kernel interface, all other components that  
use that interface need to change. So for me all the modules should  
get the same version.

Craig

>>
>> -Patrick
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Linskey
>> BEA Systems, Inc.
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> _________
>> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may
>> contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and
>> affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,
>> copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for  
>> the
>
>> use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, and have received this message in error,
>> please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
>>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> _
> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may  
> contain
> information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and   
> affiliated
> entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted   
> and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the  
> individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended  
> recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately return  
> this
> by email and then delete it.

Craig Russell
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo



Mime
View raw message