openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin Sutter" <kwsut...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: version numbers
Date Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:51:42 GMT
+1 for the 0. prefix.  Keeping the old Kodo history might be helpful for you
in the future.

I also think that keeping all of the sub-projects' version numbers in synch
makes the most sense.

Kevin

On 8/30/06, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
>
> +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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message