Spec versioning

[Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>]

I'd like to reach conclusion on the spec versioning policy this week,  
so I spent an hour attempting to fairly summarize the two main spec  
versioning proposals: one version and version per spec.  My summary  
can be found here: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/ 
Spec+Versioning

I propose that we spend a day updating the summary of the options and  
possibly adding more proposals (like David's proposal), and tomorrow  
we vote on which procedure to choose for the specs.  Please, do not  
sandbag a proposal you are against or unfairly pump up the one you  
are for as this will only delay this decision.

Please participate early, so we can get this bikeshed behind us,

-dain

Re: Spec versioning

[Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>]

The original proposal isn't on the summary yet.  I'm going to spend  
some time while at ApacheCon working on a more accurate summary of  
the options which will hopefully give us all a bit of time from this  
heated discussion to relax.

-dain

On Oct 7, 2006, at 1:48 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

> There are pros and cons for all solutions afaik.
> So let's just vote on the possible options.
>
> On 10/7/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>> Since there seems to be significant objection to one version or
>> specs... lets just go back to the original plan we had started to
>> vote on, which is similar to the model used to release m2 plugins.
>> It is not as simple as one version, but whatever... we need to get
>> this fixed.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2006, at 10:46 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>> > I'd like to reach conclusion on the spec versioning policy this
>> > week, so I spent an hour attempting to fairly summarize the two
>> > main spec versioning proposals: one version and version per spec.
>> > My summary can be found here: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/
>> > display/GMOxDEV/Spec+Versioning
>> >
>> > I propose that we spend a day updating the summary of the options
>> > and possibly adding more proposals (like David's proposal), and
>> > tomorrow we vote on which procedure to choose for the specs.
>> > Please, do not sandbag a proposal you are against or unfairly pump
>> > up the one you are for as this will only delay this decision.
>> >
>> > Please participate early, so we can get this bikeshed behind us,
>> >
>> > -dain
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet

Re: Spec versioning

[Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>]

There are pros and cons for all solutions afaik.
So let's just vote on the possible options.

On 10/7/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> Since there seems to be significant objection to one version or
> specs... lets just go back to the original plan we had started to
> vote on, which is similar to the model used to release m2 plugins.
> It is not as simple as one version, but whatever... we need to get
> this fixed.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2006, at 10:46 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> > I'd like to reach conclusion on the spec versioning policy this
> > week, so I spent an hour attempting to fairly summarize the two
> > main spec versioning proposals: one version and version per spec.
> > My summary can be found here: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/
> > display/GMOxDEV/Spec+Versioning
> >
> > I propose that we spend a day updating the summary of the options
> > and possibly adding more proposals (like David's proposal), and
> > tomorrow we vote on which procedure to choose for the specs.
> > Please, do not sandbag a proposal you are against or unfairly pump
> > up the one you are for as this will only delay this decision.
> >
> > Please participate early, so we can get this bikeshed behind us,
> >
> > -dain
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Re: Spec versioning

[Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>]

Since there seems to be significant objection to one version or  
specs... lets just go back to the original plan we had started to  
vote on, which is similar to the model used to release m2 plugins.   
It is not as simple as one version, but whatever... we need to get  
this fixed.

--jason


On Oct 4, 2006, at 10:46 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> I'd like to reach conclusion on the spec versioning policy this  
> week, so I spent an hour attempting to fairly summarize the two  
> main spec versioning proposals: one version and version per spec.   
> My summary can be found here: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/ 
> display/GMOxDEV/Spec+Versioning
>
> I propose that we spend a day updating the summary of the options  
> and possibly adding more proposals (like David's proposal), and  
> tomorrow we vote on which procedure to choose for the specs.   
> Please, do not sandbag a proposal you are against or unfairly pump  
> up the one you are for as this will only delay this decision.
>
> Please participate early, so we can get this bikeshed behind us,
>
> -dain