shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Boston <...@tfd.co.uk>
Subject Re: Proposal To Branch for 1.0 Today
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:52:55 GMT
Ok,

So I will redo the branch from trunk as 1.0.x-incubating with a  
version of 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
Trunk will become 1.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT

redoing the branch should also pull in the php re-factor and make  
future patches much easier.

Since I am now on GMT, I will wait a few hours for others to wake up :)
Ian

On 4 Dec 2008, at 08:07, Chris Chabot wrote:

> To round this up so we might be able to progress to the actual  
> release work,
> and I'm taking some liberty here with the original 'are you happy  
> with the
> 1.0 versioning' posts (binding / non binding per shindig/COMMITTERS)
>
> Pro 1.0.0 versioning:
>
>   - +1 Brian McCallister (binding / mentor)
>   - +1 Chris Chabot (binding)
>   - +1 Kevin Brown (binding)
>   - +1 Ian Boston (binding)
>   - +1 Ropu
>   - +1 Adam Winer
>   - +1 Henning P. Schmiedehausen
>
> Pro 0.8.1-X versioning:
>
>   - +1 Dan Peterson
>   - +1 Evan Gilberts
>   - +1 Tim Moore
>
>
> 4 binding +1 votes and 3 non-binding ones for 1.0.0 to a total of 7 +1
> votes, and no -1 votes
> 0 binding +1 votes and 3 non-binding +1 votes for 0.8.1-X to a total  
> of 3 +1
> votes, and no -1 votes.
>
> This wasn't an official voting round per-say so I'm not calling  
> closing this
> discussion, but if I would have to call this now, I would say that  
> the 1.0.0
> has a strong lead plus has more binding votes.
>
> If no one objects to adopting a 1.0.0 versioning scheme, I think it  
> would be
> safe to call it now; If people do have some doubts I suggest we  
> organize an
> official voting round with the usual apache rules applied.
>
> ps, side note: Mark Weitze had a question about what version numbers  
> mean
> (breaking internal API etc) and used the guidelines from
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/API_Central and
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/Version_Numbering as an example, but  
> expressed no
> opinion about the 0.8.1 / 1.0.0 versioning scheme. The result of that
> discussion was that we prefered a ARCH.MAJOR.MINOR versioning (as  
> kevin
> pointed out in a recent mail, has been standard practise for over  
> half a
> century)
>
>   -- Chris
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Ben Smith <ben.thesmith@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> On 4 Dec 2008, at 05:09, Dan Peterson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Evan Gilbert <uidude@google.com>  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Responses below. Again, I don't feel too strongly ("slavish" may  
>>> be a
>>>> slightly strong characterization of my points), but I'm not  
>>>> seeing big
>>>> benefits in the short term to major releases independent of spec
>>>> revisions.
>>>>
>>>> The cost of maintaining a release can easily outweigh the  
>>>> benefits of
>>>> releasing a new architecture earlier, when there is likely a spec  
>>>> rev
>>>> coming
>>>> up in a few months. I wouldn't tie down the versions but I do see
>>>> benefits
>>>> in starting with Opensocial Spec Version == Shindig version.
>>>>
>>>> Still happy to support the will of the group on this one - just  
>>>> wanted to
>>>> make sure that these points were heard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As stated earlier in this thread, my stance is similar to Evan's  
>>> -- I
>>> worry
>>> that we're going to confuse people by *starting off* with a Shindig
>>> version
>>> that is inflated ahead of the version of the OpenSocial spec. I  
>>> agree that
>>> we'd probably not want to hold the Shindig version to be similar  
>>> to the
>>> OpenSocial spec version in perpetuity.
>>>
>>> That all said, however, if we're the minority, we should simply  
>>> move on
>>> wrap
>>> up this release. Having stable releases at all is a really important
>>> milestone for Shindig's success.
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>
>> I thought I might proffer my 2 cents as I'm new to Shindig and know  
>> what
>> was confusing and what wasn't.
>>
>> I did not expect the Shindig version to match the Spec version. I  
>> did have
>> a look in the available README files, and would hope that this kind  
>> of
>> information would be explicate there, but in the absence of release  
>> notes I
>> just assumed the latest.
>>
>> I agree with Dan that starting off with the Spec version and then  
>> slowly
>> divorcing from it would be bonkers.
>>
>> I hope that helps,
>> Ben Smith
>> BBC
>>


Mime
View raw message