mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Versioning scheme
Date Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:07:31 GMT
Trustin Lee a écrit :

> "Some consider bumping the minor number several notches from say a 1.0 
> to a
> 1.5 for example to connotate a change in platform like switching from JDK
> 1.4 to JDK 5.0. This is also an acceptable tactic to employ."
> I would rather start from 2.1 than from 1.5 because it shows that it 
> has a
> big change more clearly.  But we lose 2.0. That's why I talked about
> switching the meaning of even and odd. :)

Trustin, I think you make a confusion about the meaning of "Stable". In 
our case - delivering a server, an API -, stable means "The 
API/functionnalities won't change for a while". It does not mean "Bug 
free", because reaching a bug free state for a project is like having a 
curve "touching" it's assymptote :)

So we can have a 2.0, without any problem, as we have had a 1.0. (with 
some problems, I must admit ;)

When we are talking about unstable, we mean : "Don't dare using this 
version in production, we won't guarantee any bug/function fix in a 
reasonnable timeframe". These odd versions are experimental. It's better 
to have them than to work in branches, because the roadmap is easier to 

The question about 1.5/2.0 related to the switch to Java 5 is totally 
different. As it has been stated, 1.5 is a simple way for users to know 
that they will need a Java 5 compatible JVM, nothing else. But if you 
feel that the modifications will be too huge, then it can really make 
sense to switch to 2.0.


PS : Of course, all this discussion is purely about semantic. If you 
want some good idea about numbering and meaning of even/odd, I suggest 
you listen "Space Oddity" - David Bowie - and "Stairway to Even" - Led 
Zeppelin - (I know, is 'heaven' ... :)

View raw message