mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Trustin Lee" <trus...@gmail.com>
Subject Sum-up: Versioning Scheme
Date Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:00:52 GMT
Hi all,

The previous thread on versioning scheme is becoming very long, so I want to
split it into two by summarizing what we agreed on.  Alex summarized our
current versioning scheme here:


I agree with his idea mostly, but there are two points to raise:

1. 1.5 -> 2.0 vs 1.9 -> 2.0 vs 2.1 -> 2.2

1.5 is a very arbitrary number and this rule cannot be applied to the future
similar changes.  What happens if we move to Java 6?  What happens we
already released 1.7 and if we move to Java 7?  1.9 has also a similar
problem; what happens if we already released 1.8?  There's no way to
distinguish from previous releases because we are out of bullet.

2.1 -> 2.2 also has a problem that 2.0 will never be released, which is kind
of weird.  Releasing 2.0-M1/2/3/4...and then RC1/2/3... and finally 2.0 can
be a solution, but it makes the even/odd scheme pointless because we can
just use 'M{number}' to state that it's unstable.  Of course, we can start
over with this whole new scheme.

2. Clarify the meaning of minor version number.

'may or may not' sounds very ambiguous.  We need to clarify it.

We can just go 1.5 or 1.9 not settling down the version numbering scheme,
but we will encounter the same problem on and on.  I'm not a perfectionist,
but I want to set up a nice rule that can be applied for as many cases as we
can cover.  Now the thread is hot, it's a great time to gather all opinions
and to improve our version numbering scheme.

what we call human nature is actually human habit
PGP key fingerprints:
* E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41  4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E
* B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4  455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message