You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@servicemix.apache.org by Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com> on 2008/08/25 10:37:34 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Start releasing a few things
+1
Freeman
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> I'd like to revive this discussion as I think we should start
> releasing the components asap.
> I no one has any better idea, we could go for xxxx.yy, where xxxx is
> the current year, and yy an incrementing counter.
> The first release would then be 2008.01 and the next one 2008.02, etc...
> Thoughts ?
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Kristian Köhler
> <kr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> A version number like 2008.01 looks good to me.
>>
>> Splitting the version number scheme for the components from the scheme used
>> for the assemblies is just an idea.. I'm not sure if we 'definitely' need
>> it. I think I could make things clearer...
>>
>> I'm torn between the current version scheme and a possible new one.
>>
>> Any other comments?
>>
>> Kristian
>>
>> 2008/7/22 Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>> The 8.8 numbering seems a bit confusing to me, as it is not obvious
>>> that the date is used. The consequence is that people will be
>>> confused about major versions change, etc...
>>> So I'd rather have 2008.01, so that it becomes more obvious that the
>>> first part is a not a major version number.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Kristian Köhler
>>> <kr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Gert ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I thought a lot about it and I think what confuses me (and perhaps some
>>>> others) the most is the fact that the components have a similar looking
>>>> version than 'one container' (ServiceMix 4). My first thought is to use
>>>> component version 4 in ServiceMix 4 because there is a version 3 which
>>>>
>>> works
>>>
>>>> with ServiceMix 3.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if this justifies a reversioning of the components but this
>>>>
>>> would
>>>
>>>> make things clearer IMHO. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> The idea is to use a separate version scheme for all parts which are used
>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>> SM3 and SM4 (components, shared, common). The scheme might look like what
>>>> Gert described (2008.01 or 8.1 (first release) or 8.8 (2008/aug)).
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps this is a temporary issue while we ship two versions of
>>>> ServiceMix...
>>>>
>>>> After all I think we should ship SM 3.2.2 as soon as possible ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Kristian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2008/7/21 Gert Vanthienen <ge...@skynet.be>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> L.S.,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think Kristian is proposing not to give any version numbers to
>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>> components, but rather not to give them a version number that can be
>>>>> confused with any given container's version number -- using something
>>>>>
>>> like
>>>
>>>>> years/months in the versioning instead. Let's say for a moment we give
>>>>>
>>> all
>>>
>>>>> the components an initial version of 2008.01 right now to indicate the
>>>>> first
>>>>> release of a component for 2008.
>>>>>
>>>>> That still leaves Bruce's suggestion for using code names for the major
>>>>> releases of SMX 3 and 4. We could have a ServiceMix 3.3 'Isis' release
>>>>> that
>>>>> contains the 2008.01 version of this component as well as ServiceMix 4.0
>>>>> 'Ra' release shipping with the same version of the component. This way,
>>>>> users wouldn't get confused over the version of the component not
>>>>>
>>> matching
>>>
>>>>> the version of the container, because they would at first glance notice
>>>>> that
>>>>> these things use completely different versioning schemes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I getting this right, Kristian? Actually, I like the idea. Instead
>>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>>> wondering whether we version the components 3.x or 4.x to cause the
>>>>>
>>> least
>>>
>>>>> confusion as we have done before, we just version them entirely
>>>>> different...
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gert
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> gnodet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> servicemix-shared and all components should work on any version of the
>>>>>> servicemix jbi container, be it 3 or 4. They should also work in any
>>>>>> other JBI container as well (such as OpenESB or Petals).
>>>>>> Wrt the versioning, given the point above, I'm not sure how to handle
>>>>>> that. I don't think restarting to 1.0 is a good idea, as these parts
>>>>>> are already released, so it would be very confusing imho. That said,
>>>>>> we could either go with 3.x or 4.x.
>>>>>> I'm not sure about not giving numbers at all for components. Bruce
>>>>>> suggested some time ago to use code names for our "big releases",
>>>>>> which would be the opposite to what you suggest ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Kristian Köhler
>>>>>> <kr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> more a general point (might be discussed already with 'the component
>>>>>>> split'):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's more about version numbers not the release process...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure if this ends up in a version clutter because it's not
>>>>>>>
>>> clear
>>>
>>>>>>> which version of (for example) ServiceMix works with which version of
>>>>>>> servicemix-shared. For example I would expect that servicemix-shared
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>> 4 works with ServiceMix 4 and servicemix-shared version 3 works with
>>>>>>> ServiceMix 3. But here servicemix-shared version 4 works with SM3 and
>>>>>>> SM4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if we release servicemix-common, servicemix-shared, components,
>>>>>>> features
>>>>>>> all in version 4 - could I use them all in SM3? ;-)
>>>>>>> I think the 'similar looking' version numbers are confusing...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just an idea: Why not release all "smaller" parts (servicemix-common,
>>>>>>> servicemix-shared, components, features) with different version
>>>>>>>
>>> numbers
>>>
>>>>>>> (Something like Ubuntu or http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/14/491) and
>>>>>>>
>>> only
>>>
>>>>>>> release the 'big assemblies' with major version numbers (ServiceMix
>>>>>>>
>>> 4,
>>>
>>>>>>> ServiceMix 3)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry but this was the first thing that came into my mind... ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kristian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2008/7/21 Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Guillaume,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to release ServiceMix 3.2.2 once Camel 1.4 get released.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Freeman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to start releasing a few things, mainly:
>>>>>>>>> * Kernel 1.0.0
>>>>>>>>> * Specs 1.0.1
>>>>>>>>> * servicemix-common / servicemix-shared
>>>>>>>>> * start releasing some of the components (there are some of thoses
>>>>>>>>> that need a bit more work for OSGi, i'll keep the list posted)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Camel 1.4 is nearly out, so we can also think about releasing
>>>>>>>>> ServiceMix 3.2.2 (finally). Any volunteer for this one or the
>>>>>>>>>
>>> above ?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> GASwerk - Geronimo Application Server Assemblies
>>>>>>> http://gaswerk.sourceforge.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> -----
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>>>> http://www.anova.be
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--Start-releasing-a-few-things-tp18563641p18569130.html
>>>
>>>>> Sent from the ServiceMix - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> GASwerk - Geronimo Application Server Assemblies
>>>> http://gaswerk.sourceforge.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>> ------------------------
>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> GASwerk - Geronimo Application Server Assemblies
>> http://gaswerk.sourceforge.net
>>
>>
>
>
>
>