You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@poi.apache.org by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org> on 2003/08/04 16:18:12 UTC
Versioning
The last time I brought this up I don't think we ever concluded or reached
anything resembling consensus. Our present version numbering system is from
the old days of sourceforge. And moreover dealt partly with a limitation I
don't think sf has anymore.
Do we want to revise our versioning scheme? I kind of feel like a linux
kernel style versioning scheme might work for us (even = prod versus odd =
dev). Still I don't really care as long as its clear (I don't really know
that the current system is clear). We could also use the HTTPD/Tomcat
scheme where we just count up from the 3.0 and mark one "release" and the
others "dev" etc. If we're going to change it we need to decide now as I
expect we'll start having 3.0-dev releases this month.
We need a new project plan for 3.0. I'm going to start one on the wiki. My
contribution will say:
* Integrate POIFS2.
* performance improvements from performance branch.
* integrate new reactor based record factory.
I want to keep the scope tighter this time as I think we all agree 2.0 has
taken way too long and we still didn't even meet all of the original
objectives.
-Andy
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
Mailing List: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#poi
The Apache Jakarta POI Project: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
Re: Versioning
Posted by Glen Stampoultzis <gs...@iinet.net.au>.
Isn't that back to how we were doing it before?
I have not particular preference. I just want to be consistent.
-- Glen
At 11:41 AM 6/08/2003, you wrote:
>Anyone have an alternative preference?
>
>If not then I'll call a vote and follow it up with a document.
>
>-andy
>
>On 8/5/03 9:17 PM, "Tetsuya Kitahata" <te...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -- Tetsuya (tetsuya@apache.org)
> >
> > On 04 Aug 2003 19:55:38 +0530
> > (Subject: Re: Versioning)
> > Avik Sengupta <av...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The current scheme is far from clear. I personally find the linux kernel
> >> scheme pretty good.
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 19:48, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >>> The last time I brought this up I don't think we ever concluded or
> reached
> >>> anything resembling consensus. Our present version numbering system
> is from
> >>> the old days of sourceforge. And moreover dealt partly with a
> limitation I
> >>> don't think sf has anymore.
> >>>
> >>> Do we want to revise our versioning scheme? I kind of feel like a linux
> >>> kernel style versioning scheme might work for us (even = prod versus
> odd =
> >>> dev). Still I don't really care as long as its clear (I don't really
> know
> >>> that the current system is clear). We could also use the HTTPD/Tomcat
> >>> scheme where we just count up from the 3.0 and mark one "release" and the
> >>> others "dev" etc. If we're going to change it we need to decide now as I
> >>> expect we'll start having 3.0-dev releases this month.
> >>>
> >>> We need a new project plan for 3.0. I'm going to start one on the
> wiki. My
> >>> contribution will say:
> >>>
> >>> * Integrate POIFS2.
> >>> * performance improvements from performance branch.
> >>> * integrate new reactor based record factory.
> >>>
> >>> I want to keep the scope tighter this time as I think we all agree
> 2.0 has
> >>> taken way too long and we still didn't even meet all of the original
> >>> objectives.
> >>>
> >>> -Andy
> >> --
> >> Avik Sengupta <av...@apache.org>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >> Mailing List: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#poi
> >> The Apache Jakarta POI Project: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc.
> > E-mail: tetsuya@apache.org
> > http://www.terra-intl.com/
> > (Apache Jakarta Translation, Japanese)
> > http://jakarta.terra-intl.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > Mailing List: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#poi
> > The Apache Jakarta POI Project: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
> >
>
>--
>Andrew C. Oliver
>http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
>Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
>
>http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
>For Java and Excel, Got POI?
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>Mailing List: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#poi
>The Apache Jakarta POI Project: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
Glen Stampoultzis
gstamp@iinet.net.au
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/
Re: Versioning
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Anyone have an alternative preference?
If not then I'll call a vote and follow it up with a document.
-andy
On 8/5/03 9:17 PM, "Tetsuya Kitahata" <te...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> -- Tetsuya (tetsuya@apache.org)
>
> On 04 Aug 2003 19:55:38 +0530
> (Subject: Re: Versioning)
> Avik Sengupta <av...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> The current scheme is far from clear. I personally find the linux kernel
>> scheme pretty good.
>>
>> On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 19:48, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>> The last time I brought this up I don't think we ever concluded or reached
>>> anything resembling consensus. Our present version numbering system is from
>>> the old days of sourceforge. And moreover dealt partly with a limitation I
>>> don't think sf has anymore.
>>>
>>> Do we want to revise our versioning scheme? I kind of feel like a linux
>>> kernel style versioning scheme might work for us (even = prod versus odd =
>>> dev). Still I don't really care as long as its clear (I don't really know
>>> that the current system is clear). We could also use the HTTPD/Tomcat
>>> scheme where we just count up from the 3.0 and mark one "release" and the
>>> others "dev" etc. If we're going to change it we need to decide now as I
>>> expect we'll start having 3.0-dev releases this month.
>>>
>>> We need a new project plan for 3.0. I'm going to start one on the wiki. My
>>> contribution will say:
>>>
>>> * Integrate POIFS2.
>>> * performance improvements from performance branch.
>>> * integrate new reactor based record factory.
>>>
>>> I want to keep the scope tighter this time as I think we all agree 2.0 has
>>> taken way too long and we still didn't even meet all of the original
>>> objectives.
>>>
>>> -Andy
>> --
>> Avik Sengupta <av...@apache.org>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> Mailing List: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#poi
>> The Apache Jakarta POI Project: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc.
> E-mail: tetsuya@apache.org
> http://www.terra-intl.com/
> (Apache Jakarta Translation, Japanese)
> http://jakarta.terra-intl.com/
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> Mailing List: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#poi
> The Apache Jakarta POI Project: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
>
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
Mailing List: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#poi
The Apache Jakarta POI Project: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
Re: Versioning
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>.
+1
-- Tetsuya (tetsuya@apache.org)
On 04 Aug 2003 19:55:38 +0530
(Subject: Re: Versioning)
Avik Sengupta <av...@apache.org> wrote:
> The current scheme is far from clear. I personally find the linux kernel
> scheme pretty good.
>
> On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 19:48, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > The last time I brought this up I don't think we ever concluded or reached
> > anything resembling consensus. Our present version numbering system is from
> > the old days of sourceforge. And moreover dealt partly with a limitation I
> > don't think sf has anymore.
> >
> > Do we want to revise our versioning scheme? I kind of feel like a linux
> > kernel style versioning scheme might work for us (even = prod versus odd =
> > dev). Still I don't really care as long as its clear (I don't really know
> > that the current system is clear). We could also use the HTTPD/Tomcat
> > scheme where we just count up from the 3.0 and mark one "release" and the
> > others "dev" etc. If we're going to change it we need to decide now as I
> > expect we'll start having 3.0-dev releases this month.
> >
> > We need a new project plan for 3.0. I'm going to start one on the wiki. My
> > contribution will say:
> >
> > * Integrate POIFS2.
> > * performance improvements from performance branch.
> > * integrate new reactor based record factory.
> >
> > I want to keep the scope tighter this time as I think we all agree 2.0 has
> > taken way too long and we still didn't even meet all of the original
> > objectives.
> >
> > -Andy
> --
> Avik Sengupta <av...@apache.org>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> Mailing List: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#poi
> The Apache Jakarta POI Project: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
-----------------------------------------------------
Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc.
E-mail: tetsuya@apache.org
http://www.terra-intl.com/
(Apache Jakarta Translation, Japanese)
http://jakarta.terra-intl.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
Mailing List: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#poi
The Apache Jakarta POI Project: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
Re: Versioning
Posted by Avik Sengupta <av...@apache.org>.
The current scheme is far from clear. I personally find the linux kernel
scheme pretty good.
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 19:48, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> The last time I brought this up I don't think we ever concluded or reached
> anything resembling consensus. Our present version numbering system is from
> the old days of sourceforge. And moreover dealt partly with a limitation I
> don't think sf has anymore.
>
> Do we want to revise our versioning scheme? I kind of feel like a linux
> kernel style versioning scheme might work for us (even = prod versus odd =
> dev). Still I don't really care as long as its clear (I don't really know
> that the current system is clear). We could also use the HTTPD/Tomcat
> scheme where we just count up from the 3.0 and mark one "release" and the
> others "dev" etc. If we're going to change it we need to decide now as I
> expect we'll start having 3.0-dev releases this month.
>
> We need a new project plan for 3.0. I'm going to start one on the wiki. My
> contribution will say:
>
> * Integrate POIFS2.
> * performance improvements from performance branch.
> * integrate new reactor based record factory.
>
> I want to keep the scope tighter this time as I think we all agree 2.0 has
> taken way too long and we still didn't even meet all of the original
> objectives.
>
> -Andy
--
Avik Sengupta <av...@apache.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
Mailing List: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#poi
The Apache Jakarta POI Project: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/