mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edouard De Oliveira <doe_wan...@yahoo.fr>
Subject Re : Re : [Votes] MINA 2.0-RC1
Date Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:49:21 GMT
You're right using a N.5 notation for instable work in progress is ok to me
2.0.0-Mx should indeed be used for an almost frozen API (sometimes minor changes that can't
be postponed are needed)
N.0.x are and should be bug fixes

By drawing aside N.1 and N.2 do you mean we will only do bug fixes on the 2.0 branch and new
features will only 
go to 2.5 branch ? I'm not saying i disagree i just want to make your statement more clear.
 Cordialement, Regards,
-Edouard De Oliveira-
http://tedorg.free.fr/en/main.php




________________________________
De : Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
À : dev@mina.apache.org
Envoyé le : Mardi, 18 Novembre 2008, 14h32mn 17s
Objet : Re: Re : [Votes] MINA 2.0-RC1


> This will allow on focusing a big road map for 3.0 maybe hitting some 2.1,2.2 on the
road to progressively introduce some changes and see how community reacts to them.
>  
May I suggest that we use a clear notation for 'unstable' versions? With the current one (ie,
2.0.0-Mx), people tend to think that it's stable (stable <=> API is frozen).

What about using a N.5 for unstable versions, and N.0 for stable versions? For instance,
2.5 will be unstable, and will be renamed 3.0-RC1 as soon as we have frozen the API.

IMO, having N.1, N.2 etc is not necessarily a good idea. There is some confusion between N.0
and N.1 versions, as N.0.x are already bug fixes.

-- --
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org


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