shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brian McCallister" <bri...@ning.com>
Subject Re: Proposal To Branch for 1.0 Today
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:09:24 GMT
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
View raw message