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 17:44:22 GMT
actually that's 2 mistakes in the list of binding/non-binding, both evan and
dan are committers; Ugh we should update that file before any one else
depends on it while writing email in the early morning before coffee :)

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Brian McCallister <brianm@ning.com> wrote:

> binding vs. non-binding really shouldn't be a big deal -- particularly
> as there is at least one mistake in the list ;-)
>
> To be clear, I am specifically in favor of adopting APR versioning (
> http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html ).
>
> -Brian
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Chris Chabot <chabotc@google.com> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message