shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Chabot <chab...@google.com>
Subject Re: Proposal To Branch for 1.0 Today
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:07:32 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message