Stuart Ballard wrote: >On 2/27/06, Brian Jones <cbj@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>Suggest making next release 0.90 and incrementing towards 1.0. The 1.0 >>release should be 1.4.0 (or 1.40 if you were going to be consistent, but >>I digress). Anyway my $0.02. >> >> > >0.90 has problems if there turn out to be more than 9 more releases >before 1.(4.)0 is reached. Hard to say whether that's likely or not, >but I think it would be better if our decision of when to hit 1.x was >based purely on technical grounds and not affected by limits on the >version-number space. > >On the other hand, well spotted (I think?) that 0.9.x might be >considered a lower version that 0.21 by packaging tools. dpkg >--compare-versions appears to think so, if I'm understanding how to >use it right. This may be moot though as the debian classpath package >already has an epoch on it; I don't know how rpm handles this kind of >issue. > > > I think the actual precedent is to go 0.9xx... as needed until you _can_ declare the 1.0. So it's more of a mindset thing to bump the number and get folks really working towards that 1 goal. You do not need to feel limited to only 9 releases. There can in fact remain an infinite number of releases between 0.90 and 1.x. :) I just can't figure out a good way to declare something as pre-1.4.0 without confusing folks more, as in 1.3.x won't work as it is also false. So just keeping the same style as now and moving forward to 0.90 makes good sense to me. But what version numbers will you use post 1.4.0 for development releases? Would you go with 1.5.0-xxxx or similar for HEAD and 1.4.0-xxxx for the 1.4 release branch? That actually doesn't quite work, the 1.5 release branch would also end up 1.5.0-xxxx so something else will have to differentiate a dev release. You can of course internally continue with your same scheme and simply tag your production releases as corresponding to a particular java release and leave it at that. Doesn't look like anyone wants to do that though. Oh yes, if the packaging tools can't tell 1.4.0 is newer than 0.90 then perhaps you'd want to bring about the package version change hell sooner rather than later. Brian
