river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Costers <jonathan.cost...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Release versioning
Date Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:52:03 GMT
Actually, when I carefully read the posted definitions, what we are
about to release really more looks like a point release...

So 2.1.2?

And when we do the com.sun.jini -> org.apache.river namechange, move to
2.2?

Just a thought..

Op zondag 04-10-2009 om 21:42 uur [tijdzone +1000], schreef Peter
Firmstone:
> +1
> 
> Peter.
> 
> Jonathan Costers wrote:
> > What about this:
> >
> > - Previous release was 2.1.1 (AR1).
> >   -> apache-river-2.1.1-incubating
> >
> > - We are developing for 2.2, hence all Hudson builds are named
> > 2.2-SNAPSHOT
> >   -> apache-river-2.2-SNAPSHOT-incubating
> >
> > - When we release 2.2 (AR2) we change version to 2.2
> >   -> apache-river-2.2-incubating
> >
> > - After building 2.2, we set version to 2.2.1-SNAPSHOT (or whatever
> > version we decide we should go to after 2.2)
> >   -> apache-river-2.2.1-SNAPSHOT-incubating
> >
> > This would be compatible with Maven repositories, allowing us to publish
> > all snapshot builds. It would IMHO also make more sense then what we are
> > doing now (i.e. all snapshot builds are currently still named 2.1.1).
> >
> > Best
> > Jonathan
> >
> > Op zaterdag 03-10-2009 om 15:24 uur [tijdzone +1000], schreef Peter
> > Firmstone:
> >   
> >> Ok, how about the following release version scheme?
> >>
> >> Major.Minor.Point
> >>
> >> -Point Release:     No API changes, bug fixes, internal implementation
> >>                     refactoring only.
> >> -Minor Release:     Expanded API for existing packages, new utility 
> >> packages,
> >>                     no breaking of API backward compatibility.
> >>                     Bug fixes, reimplementation or refactoring of existing
> >>                     API functionality.
> >> -Major Release:     New Features, Packages & API, where those API 
> >> Changes could
> >>                     potentially break backward compatibility and require
> >>                     recompilation for existing applications.
> >>
> >> I'm not suggesting we break backward compatibility, just that if we do, 
> >> it'll definitely be a major point release.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Peter.
> >>     
> >
> >
> >   
> 


Mime
View raw message