mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <aok...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: Versioning scheme
Date Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:45:22 GMT
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> peter royal wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 2006, at 6:05 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
>>> MINA is going to move to Java 5, and thus its major
>>> version number should be 2 ( i.e. 2.0.0), but we can't go to 2.0 
>>> because the
>>> minor version number 0 means 'stable'.  So we are talking about using 
>>> the
>>> version number 1.5 or 1.9, but I think it's very weird because we've 
>>> changed
>>> our platform.
>>> WDYT?
>> I'm fine with not disturbing the even/odd thing, and would prefer not to.
>> 1.1 is the next development version. It can be 2.0 when its released. 
>> Anything wrong with that?
> In short nothing is wrong with that approach but it may lead to some 
> confusion.  Let me explain ...
> You bring up a very good point.  1.1.0 is a development release and 
> should not be used in production and is meant for evaluating new 
> features, testing and feedback.  2.0 is the official release and that's 
> got the big jump in version number we're looking for to make it clear 
> that there was a big change in the supported JDK platforms as well as 
> API and other features.
> However people are still going to use 1.1.x releases because they want 
> the new features and may risk dealing with the instability in production.
> So yeah 1.1 is fine for *us* as the next dev branch for java 5 and up. 
> We can do dev releases 1.1.x from there with each introducing new 
> features until we decide to stabilize and release 2.0.
> For those few who do push 1.1.x releases into production you might want 
> to send them a clear message that something big has changed even in this 
> dev version from the get go.  That's why I think there was this 
> recommendation to jump to 1.5.  Otherwise these guys are going to drop 
> 1.1 into their JDK 1.4 apps in production and have a big surprise.
> I think we can mix a little of what everyone is saying and arrive at a 
> great result.  What about bumping the next dev branch to 1.5 and 
> releasing 2.0 right afterwards?
> Really we would not have this issue (hence all this conversation) if it 
> was not for giving up 1.4 compatibility.  We have to do the same thing 
> for ApacheDS as well.

I tried to sum up some of the recent conversations here:


If I messed anything up please correct me.


View raw message