aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Releasing jmx, blueprint and transaction
Date Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:22:47 GMT
It does and fwiw incubation status should have nothing to do with the
versioning scheme.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2010, Graham Charters <gcharters@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think at some point we should be adopting the semantic versioning
> policy recommended by the OSGi Alliance.  Versions under 1.0 seem to
> be special (in the way we use them at the moment) and seem to imply
> experimentation and no commitment to backward compatibility (or
> incubating).  However, on a component-by-component basis, we could
> decide that they're "done" and release 1.0.  Updates from then on
> should follow the semantic versioning rules.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> On 2 November 2010 23:10, Alasdair Nottingham <not@apache.org> wrote:
>> I would go with releasing them at version 0.3, or have I missed the point?
>>
>> Alasdair
>>
>> Alasdair
>>
>> On 2 Nov 2010, at 21:14, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think when discussed that a while back, we decided to go with
>>> individual lifecycles for Aries components.
>>> I wonder what kind of versioning scheme do we want to follow for that.
>>> The question arise because I'd like to have the mentioned components
>>> released in the coming weeks, so unless we start doing a full release
>>> again, we have to decide how do actually release individual
>>> components.  Also the Sling team would certainly be happy to have the
>>> new jmx-whiteboard released as well.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>> ------------------------
>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>> ------------------------
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://fusesource.com
>>
>

-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Mime
View raw message