river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Brouwer <mark.brou...@cheiron.org>
Subject Re: River release naming, version, etc.
Date Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:40:47 GMT
Craig L Russell wrote:
> 
> On Sep 25, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Dan Creswell wrote:
> 
>> John McClain - Sun Microsystems, Inc. wrote:
>>> Mark Brouwer wrote:
>>>>> Finally, around version -- some have expressed a desire to follow
>>>>> the version numbering of the starter kit (to align with those releases
>>>>> and communicate that this isn't a 0.1 release or the like).  Thus, the
>>>>> last Starter Kit release was "v2.1" so this could be (v.2.1.1, 
>>>>> v2.2, or
>>>>> v.3.0).  I don't really have a personal preference on this one at all,
>>>>> and am very interested in what your opinion is here.
>>>>
>>>> v2.1.1
>>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> I assume at some point before we exit incubation the need to move from
>>> the com.sun.jini package name space will make us want to bump the
>>> version number to at least 2.2, if not 3.0.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So this really matters at the point where we remove the com.sun.jini
>> packages entirely (we were talking about a "temporary" compatibility
>> type thing as a possibility).
>>
>> Regardless when the removal happens if we haven't bumped the release
>> number substantially by then I too would have thought we should bump it
>> at that point.
> 
> To avoid confusion, I'd recommend that when you change package names, 
> you make a Major Release.
> 
> 3.0 sounds like a good number.

Although now is probably not the right moment to discuss this, but I
think that bumping to 3.0 while e.g. all the Jini specifications in
net.jini are the same is only adding to the confusion.

I consider this a consequence of the unlucky historical coupling of the
specification(s) versions and the implementation and other stuff (aka
the JTSK). As such I would like to have a version numbering discussion
in the context of specification versus incarnation.

It might be that I'm alone in this (if so I really like to hear) but to
me River doesn't represent the only 'Jini' out there and at least I have
the need for something more stable on the network edge than something
for which version numbers are increased by the River versioning scheme
and whether a package name is changing and in that context might
represent a major release.
-- 
Mark


Mime
View raw message