Re: What will the GA version number be?

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

Just a quick follow up to this: 2.0 works perfectly fine in OSGi. Even the
version number 2 would work. Either one gets automatically expanded to
2.0.0, or they're interpreted as the same version number regardless.


On 4 February 2014 17:48, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I prefer the aesthetics of 2.0, but prefer 2.0.0 due to semver. Then
> again, as long as we make the OSGi version 2.0.0, we're good. That's
> configurable in the OSGi pom.xml files.
>
>
> On 4 February 2014 05:02, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I haven't really heard anything to make me change my mind. 2.0.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 11:44 PM, Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe he'll respond again tonight and let us know if he's set on 2.0 or
>> fine with 2.0.0. :-)
>>
>> N
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>> I'm happy to let Ralph pick, either way is fine with me.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Nick Williams <
>> nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt and Christian did, however, point out semver. There's something to
>>> be said about following a community practice, and use of x.y.z far
>>> outweighs use of x.y in OSS.
>>>
>>> N
>>>
>>> On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:21 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>> Nick,
>>>
>>> I do not think you can go wrong by writing 2.0 in the book. I'm OK with
>>> 2.0 and 2.0.0 even though 2.0.0 feels redundant. Like someone else posted I
>>> find the .FINAL and -RELEASE and whatnot ludicrous.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Nick Williams <
>>> nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well well well. I'm sensing a lot of disagreement. Too bad my book goes
>>>> to the printers Wednesday. I have a feeling no matter what I put in it
>>>> there's a good chance it'll change. :-P
>>>>
>>>> Any way we can come to a consensus in the next 6-8 hours or so (by 9
>>>> a.m. CST)?
>>>>
>>>> N
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:46 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Plus, if we're really keen on OSGi support, note that OSGi assumes
>>>> version numbers follow the semantic versioning scheme. Producers use an API
>>>> like [1.1, 1.2), whereas consumers use an API like [1.1, 2.0). Yes, those
>>>> are half-open intervals, and yes, that is the official notation. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3 February 2014 15:41, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3 Feb 2014, at 22:14, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > I like 2.0.0 because semver.org etc., although as long as it's not
>>>>> a dumb
>>>>> > version number like GA or RELEASE or Final, I'm happy with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sticking with semver might be a good idea. Its a language many
>>>>> understand
>>>>> and we should try to stick with that lanugage as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 3 February 2014 07:07, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Keep it simple: 2.0.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Gary
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> -------- Original message --------
>>>>> >> From: Christian Grobmeier
>>>>> >> Date:02/03/2014 05:12 (GMT-05:00)
>>>>> >> To: Log4J Developers List
>>>>> >> Subject: Re: What will the GA version number be?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Also 2.0 or 2.0.0 for me
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> I had thought it would be 2.0.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> On Feb 2, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Nick Williams
>>>>> >>>> <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> I'm finalizing the logging chapter of my book to send to the
>>>>> printers
>>>>> >>>> Wednesday (I'm so glad I got to correct it to say Level was
>>>>> >>>> extendable!), and I need to know what the Maven artifact GA
>>>>> version
>>>>> >>>> number will be. I print the new Maven artifacts used in each
>>>>> chapter
>>>>> >>>> on the first page of the chapter as a guide to the user. Log4j is
>>>>> the
>>>>> >>>> only library I'm using that isn't yet GA. I want to be sure the
>>>>> >>>> version numbers I'm printing are correct.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Here are the options that I can think of for the GA release:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> 2.0
>>>>> >>>> 2.0-GA
>>>>> >>>> 2.0.GA
>>>>> >>>> 2.0.Final
>>>>> >>>> 2.0.RELEASE
>>>>> >>>> 2.0.0
>>>>> >>>> 2.0.0-GA
>>>>> >>>> 2.0.0.GA
>>>>> >>>> 2.0.0.Final
>>>>> >>>> 2.0.0.RELEASE
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> So, which is it going to be? I assume that eventually we're going
>>>>> to
>>>>> >>>> have a 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc., so it would seem to me that, whatever
>>>>> GA
>>>>> >>>> is, it should start with 2.0.0. Doesn't seem to make a lot of
>>>>> sense
>>>>> >>>> to go from 2.0 to 2.0.1. However, all of our beta releases have
>>>>> been
>>>>> >>>> 2.0-Betan.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Thoughts?
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Nick
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ---
>>>>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>>> >> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>>>> >> @grobmeier
>>>>> >> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>>>> @grobmeier
>>>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>



-- 
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>