On 10/10/2013 09:39 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote:
<snip/>
Case in point: SCXML
If we are allowed to start working on this component shortly, we intend to,
and HAVE to switch to a 1.0 version first, as there already is a 0.9 version
release out, while we will need to move to newer JDK and incompatible API
changes anyway. At the same time, getting a final/stabalized 1.0 release out
most certainly will take several iterations.
<snip/>
Release version comparisons being what the are, we could go to v0.10,
as in below (greater than sign implies more recent release version):
0.11 > 0.10 > 0.9
For the intended promotion of the SCXML J6 branch to trunk, I don't think that
would align with the Commons versioning scheme.
The SCXML J6 branch (which currently already uses version 1.0-SNAPSHOT) imposes
API breaking changes from the 0.9 release, as well as targets a newer JDK (1.6+).
AFAIK this will require a major version bump, hence should target version 1.0.
I thus intend to roll out a first intermediate release of this new trunk as
version 1.0-alpha-1 (as discussed earlier today in a separate thread).
What however is still unclear to me is if this also requires a package rename,
e.g. move from org.apache.commons.scxml.* -> org.apache.commons.scxml1.* ?
I got the impression from other discussions as well as from looking at other
components recent major versions, that this now also is a rule or policy within
Commons. But I can't find any specific writing about such 'policy'.
At least the online Versioning document doesn't say anything about it, or I must
be blindly overlooking it.
So my question is: is such package rename now a required rule, or more of a
convention?
And if this was established as a formal requirement, can someone point me out
the documentation (or maybe VOTE thread) for it?
Thanks, Ate
Not very different than, say the following, which may appear more
intuitive for release versions (agree 0.x line is trickier):
2.11 > 2.10 > 2.9
Overall, I think it's OK to go the 0.10 route, if you want to save a
1.0 major release for later at a point it's really needed.
In hindsight, the first Commons SCXML release could've been 0.1
(rather than 0.5) to give more room for 4 more releases before getting
to this point :-)
-Rahul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
