incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sakala, Adinarayana" <ASAK...@iona.com>
Subject RE: Yoko version... (WAS: RE: Steps for hitting a Milestone release (WAS: RE: Milestone release))
Date Wed, 14 Jun 2006 05:01:06 GMT
Here is the official answer from maven team on the topic of version.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/200606.mbox/%3cPine.LNX.4.58.0606140259520.4265@fire.homenet.neonics.com%3e

Essentially David's suggestion is right. 
  1.0-incubating-M1 < 1.0 < 1.0-1

So, since now Alan is sold on :) having the word "incubating",
Shall we adopt the version being "1.0-incubating-M1"?

thanks,
Adi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sakala, Adinarayana 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:29 AM
> To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Yoko version... (WAS: RE: Steps for hitting a Milestone
> release (WAS: RE: Milestone release))
> 
> 
> Thanks David.
> > I'm not sure I'm entirely accurate here, however I'm sure 
> that x.y.z- 
> > incubating is before x.y.z
> > 
> >   This is discussed in "Better builds with maven" page 59.
> 
> What is the best way to confirm this?
> David/somebody want to confirm it with Maven dev team?
> 
> I really hope this is true because, we are definetley not at 
> 0.1 release, In my opinion Yoko is very close to 1.0 because 
> we have a real working and stable CORBA Server.
> 
> Waiting to confirm from Maven team, Lets see if we all can 
> agree to version as,
>   "1.0-M1"
> 
> thanks,
> adi
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Jencks [mailto:david_jencks@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:11 PM
> > To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Yoko version... (WAS: RE: Steps for hitting a Milestone
> > release (WAS: RE: Milestone release))
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Jun 12, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > David,
> > >
> > >> I assume this is maven2 we're talking about...
> > >>
> > >> My understanding is that
> > >>
> > >> x.y.z-alphabetic
> > >> precedes
> > >> x.y.z
> > >> which precedes
> > >> x.y.z-numeric
> > >
> > > Is this documented someplace?
> > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure I'm entirely accurate here, however I'm sure 
> that x.y.z- 
> > incubating is before x.y.z
> > 
> >   This is discussed in "Better builds with maven" page 59.
> > 
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> > 
> > 
> > >   I went thought most of the "mini guides" on
> > > the maven website and didn't see anything which is why I 
> > raised the  
> > > concern.
> > > I'd rather not rely on undocumented behavior that just 
> happens to  
> > > do what we
> > > want.   Then again, much of maven's behavior falls into that  
> > > category.  :-(
> > > (honestly, I LIKE maven, but sometimes, all you can do is just  
> > > shake your
> > > head and wonder.....)
> > >
> > >
> > >> Thus 1.0-SNAPSHOT is before 1.0, and build 1 (1.0-1) is 
> after 1.0.
> > >
> > > SNAPSHOT's are special cases as you need to explicitly enable  
> > > them.  My
> > > understanding is the -SNAPHOST tail is treated completely 
> special  
> > > so that
> > > they can be completely turned off, the release plugin can "flag"  
> > > them, etc...
> > >
> > >
> > >>>> My suggestion is to just play it safe and make sure the first
> > >>>> "#.#" is there
> > >>>> and is incremented in some fassion for each release.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, its sounds like going with your suggestion is a better idea.
> > >>> i.e 0.1-incubating-M1
> > >>>
> > >>> Any objections to this change?
> > >>
> > >> If this contains pretty much the intended feature set for 
> > 1.0, I'd go
> > >> with 1.0-incubating-M1.  If there's enormous missing 
> functionality,
> > >> 0.1-incubating-M1 seems more appropriate.  I was under the 
> > impression
> > >> that the former was more accurate :-)
> > >
> > > Ok, how about 0.9-incubating-M1?  :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > J. Daniel Kulp
> > > Principal Engineer
> > > IONA
> > > P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194   F:781-902-8001
> > > daniel.kulp@iona.com
> > 
> > 
> 

Mime
View raw message