uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam Lally" <ala...@alum.rpi.edu>
Subject Re: naming releases
Date Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:51:22 GMT
On 11/13/06, Thilo Goetz <twgoetz@gmx.de> wrote:
> Our version is currently called 1.0-SNAPSHOT, which is the Maven
> default.  What are we going to call this version, anyway?  We have 2.0
> out already, and the move to Apache justifies a major version hike, to
> my mind.  3.0, anyone?  Or are we starting over on Apache?
>
> I checked what Wicket is doing: they're continuing with their pre-Apache
> version scheme.  I'd vote for doing that as well.  Whether we call it
> 2.0, 2.1 or 3.0 is not clear to me.  Anyone have any arguments one way
> or the other?
>
> --Thilo


Now see, if we had just changed the name of the project then we could
have reset our version number to 1.0 without any problem. :)  Now all
options seem flawed:  If we call it 2.1, it seems strange to me that
2.x would be split with 2.0 being com.ibm and 2.1 being org.apache.
On the other hand calling it 3.0 seems like an odd thing to do when it
has the exact same feature set as 2.0 (and we've never even had a
non-beta release of 2.0).

I think maybe I like Apache UIMA 1.0.  I think the potential for
confusion with IBM UIMA 1.0 is actually not that great, since there
hasn't been an IBM UIMA 1.0 in active use for a couple of years.  I
suppose there may be a marketing downside to rebooting our version
number, but that's about the only real problem I see.

-Adam

Mime
View raw message