[Dev] Milestone numbering going forward
twl at osafoundation.org
Tue Nov 29 15:08:36 PST 2005
I think that Alec is right here on alphaness.
As far as the rest of the numbering, i think it's the inclusion of
the milestone number in the version number that is the source of the
problems. Most apache projects don't do this. There are nightly
builds, which are versioned by date, and then alphas, beta, RC's and
The only projects that I am aware of that use milestones are Eclipse
and Mozilla. The Eclipse folks use a number scheme similar to the
one being proposed (see <http://eclipse.org/downloads/>). They also
use a datestamped nightly build. I wasn't able to find any
milestone builds off of Mozilla.org at all, but I did find the
On Nov 29, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Alec Flett wrote:
> Heikki Toivonen wrote:
>> If we start talking about alphas and betas now, some people could get
>> the impression that Chandler 1.0 is almost out of the door, which is
>> obviously not the case. We'd rather avoid that.
> I completely disagree here, at least in terms of alpha. It is
> standard practice to have <version>alpha to indicate that <version>
> is not out yet. I think if we talk about 0.7 alpha 1, people are
> not going to think that 1.0 is near.
> I feel like we're really bucking all the common trends in
> versioning, both open source and closed - why not look at some
> existing projects and look at what they do? If people are
> complaining that our versioning is confusing, then inventing a new
> mechanism is not going to help the situation.
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
Ted Leung Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)
PGP Fingerprint: 1003 7870 251F FA71 A59A CEE3 BEBA 2B87 F5FC 4B42
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dev