shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Smith <ben.thesm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal To Branch for 1.0 Today
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:07:48 GMT
Hey Ian,

If you're on GMT, does this mean you're in England? If so, do you  
fancy meeting up?

Cheers,
Ben Smith
BBC

On 4 Dec 2008, at 13:52, Ian Boston wrote:

> 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