You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mina.apache.org by Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org> on 2018/07/06 14:29:15 UTC
MINA branch names
Any objections to setting up a 2.X branch which serves as the master then
create the explicit numerical branches when releases are done? The 2.0
used to be the master but now there is 2.1. Just looking to make it easier
to understand.
Re: MINA branch names
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 06/07/2018 à 23:15, Jonathan Valliere a écrit :
> There are no 2.1 releases are there?
No, there are none. There is a branch I created, but no release so far.
Maybe 3.0 should be reserved for some
> incompatible refactor.
3.0 does exist, and we have releases for it, but it's currently sleeping.
>
> I know we had a discussion about this before; shouldn’t the major versions
> numbers have a goal of maintaining compatibility with the entire major
> number? So moving to 3 from 2 allows us to break backwards compatibility?
We use X.Y.Z :
- X, you can break whatever you want
- Y, you should not break the API, but you can extend it
- Z, you should never break the API, nor extend it.
But we have to be pragmatic, too...
--
Emmanuel Lecharny
Symas.com
directory.apache.org
Re: MINA branch names
Posted by Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org>.
There are no 2.1 releases are there? Maybe 3.0 should be reserved for some
incompatible refactor.
I know we had a discussion about this before; shouldn’t the major versions
numbers have a goal of maintaining compatibility with the entire major
number? So moving to 3 from 2 allows us to break backwards compatibility?
Other than that, sounds like a plan.
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:08 PM Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Le 06/07/2018 à 16:29, Jonathan Valliere a écrit :
> > Any objections to setting up a 2.X branch which serves as the master then
> > create the explicit numerical branches when releases are done? The 2.0
> > used to be the master but now there is 2.1. Just looking to make it
> easier
> > to understand.
>
> No objection.
>
> We should rename the 3.0 branch to MINA-future, and the 2.1 branch to 3.X.
>
> The current 2.0 branch could be renamed 2.X.
>
> --
> Emmanuel Lecharny
>
> Symas.com
> directory.apache.org
>
>
Re: MINA branch names
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 06/07/2018 à 16:29, Jonathan Valliere a écrit :
> Any objections to setting up a 2.X branch which serves as the master then
> create the explicit numerical branches when releases are done? The 2.0
> used to be the master but now there is 2.1. Just looking to make it easier
> to understand.
No objection.
We should rename the 3.0 branch to MINA-future, and the 2.1 branch to 3.X.
The current 2.0 branch could be renamed 2.X.
--
Emmanuel Lecharny
Symas.com
directory.apache.org