[Vote] Versionning scheme

[Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>]

Hi guys,

we have had many mails exchanged, many convo at ApacheCon EU this month, 
about which is the best versionning scheme for ADS. Strange enough, 
after a first burst of idea, things just cool down a little bit.

We now have to make a decision, though this vote.

Lately, there was some kind of agreement about this scheme :

- X.0 versions will be stable versions (like 1.0.2)

- X.5 versions will be transitonal versions, which means some more 
featurzes can be included (like 1.5.1)

- (X+1).0 version will be the next stable version (like 2.0.1)

- When (X+1) version is issued, then the X version will be terminated 
(no more evolution, only important bug fixes)

- X.0 and X.5 version might be tested against VSLDAP compliance, if needed

- Data migration between X.0 and (X+1).0 should be automated, when data 
migration between X.0 and X.5 might not be done with a tool.

- But when migrating for X.5 to (X+1).0, then a tool *must* be included 
to guarantee data migration.

Ok, the vote now:

[ ] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
[ ] +/- 0 : I have no idea, or I don't share this idea, but better this 
one than no scheme
[ ] -1 : Not a good idea.

Please, feel free to comment your choice, because we will have to give 
an explaination to our users !

Thanks a lot !
Emmanuel

Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme

[Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>]

> [X] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me

Regards,
Stefan Seelmann

Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme

[Stefan Zoerner <sz...@apache.org>]

Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Ok, the vote now:

> [ ] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
> [ ] +/- 0 : I have no idea, or I don't share this idea, but better this 
> one than no scheme
> [ ] -1 : Not a good idea.
+1


"- X.0 and X.5 version might be tested against VSLDAP compliance, if needed"
The point "if needed" has to be detailed in my point of view. But this 
does not affect my opinion to the topic itself.

Greetings from Lake Constance,
     Stefan

Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme

[Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>]

On 5/25/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [X] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me


My primary concern is to have only two branches concurrently managed at a
time:

  (1) a bug fix branch
  (2) a feature introduction branch

This has several advantages.

  (1) feature isolation which makes trouble shooting and documentation of
       features easier to manage.
  (2) makes sure the bug fix branch is asymtotic as a function of releases
       verses the number of bugs in the server.
  (3) allows for massive changes in feature branches during feature
introduction
       without requiring strict adherence to interfaces - developers are
freer to introduce
       more drastic changes without worry.

This scheme accomplishes this just the way the even and odd scheme did
except
it forces a major number increment after each feature introduction cycle
which is
fine.  The other even/odd minor number scheme which we have in place today
did
not presume that the major number needed to be incremented after reaching a
multiple
of 10 on the minor number.  Regardless I think I like the idea of
incrementing the major
number after a feature introduction cycle which could span months with
several feature
releases and large changes to the code which may not be backwards compatible
with
the earlier bug fix branch.

Alex

Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme

[Ersin Er <er...@gmail.com>]

[X] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me.

On 5/26/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> we have had many mails exchanged, many convo at ApacheCon EU this month,
> about which is the best versionning scheme for ADS. Strange enough,
> after a first burst of idea, things just cool down a little bit.
>
> We now have to make a decision, though this vote.
>
> Lately, there was some kind of agreement about this scheme :
>
> - X.0 versions will be stable versions (like 1.0.2)
>
> - X.5 versions will be transitonal versions, which means some more
> featurzes can be included (like 1.5.1)
>
> - (X+1).0 version will be the next stable version (like 2.0.1)
>
> - When (X+1) version is issued, then the X version will be terminated
> (no more evolution, only important bug fixes)
>
> - X.0 and X.5 version might be tested against VSLDAP compliance, if needed
>
> - Data migration between X.0 and (X+1).0 should be automated, when data
> migration between X.0 and X.5 might not be done with a tool.
>
> - But when migrating for X.5 to (X+1).0, then a tool *must* be included
> to guarantee data migration.
>
> Ok, the vote now:
>
> [ ] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
> [ ] +/- 0 : I have no idea, or I don't share this idea, but better this
> one than no scheme
> [ ] -1 : Not a good idea.
>
> Please, feel free to comment your choice, because we will have to give
> an explaination to our users !
>
> Thanks a lot !
> Emmanuel
>


-- 
Ersin

Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme

[Christine Koppelt <ch...@googlemail.com>]

[X] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me

[Vote] [RESULTS] Versionning scheme

[Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>]

All +1 votes from the following:

Pierre Marcelot
Emmanuel Lecharny
Chris Custine
Christine Koppelt
Stefan Seelmann
Ersin Er
Stefan Zoerner
Alex Karasulu

We will use the 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 scheme where X.0 branches represent bug
fix branches and X.5 branches represent feature introduction branches.

Thanks,
Alex

Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme

[Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>]

+1

On 5/25/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> > [X] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
>
>
> > Emmanuel
> >
>
>

Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme

[Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>]

> [X] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me


> Emmanuel
>

Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme

[Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>]

[X] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me

Sounds good.

P-A M.


On 5/27/07, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> I think series is 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 ...  There will be no version numbers
> other than those in this series like say 1.7.  This way we can jump up to
> higher version numbers quicker which I think shows well the maturity level
> of the software.
>
> Alex
>
> On 5/27/07, Chris Custine <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [x] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
> >
> > Sounds good to me guys.  One thing that wasn't clear to me though, are
> > we literally talking about 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 progression or are you
> > talking about any non whole number (like 1.5, 1.6, 1.7) for transitional
> > versions?  Either way is fine with me, I just wanted to make sure I
> > understood correctly.
> >
> > I like it, lets go for it.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/25/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > we have had many mails exchanged, many convo at ApacheCon EU this
> > > month,
> > > about which is the best versionning scheme for ADS. Strange enough,
> > > after a first burst of idea, things just cool down a little bit.
> > >
> > > We now have to make a decision, though this vote.
> > >
> > > Lately, there was some kind of agreement about this scheme :
> > >
> > > - X.0 versions will be stable versions (like 1.0.2)
> > >
> > > - X.5 versions will be transitonal versions, which means some more
> > > featurzes can be included (like 1.5.1)
> > >
> > > - (X+1).0 version will be the next stable version (like 2.0.1)
> > >
> > > - When (X+1) version is issued, then the X version will be terminated
> > > (no more evolution, only important bug fixes)
> > >
> > > - X.0 and X.5 version might be tested against VSLDAP compliance, if
> > > needed
> > >
> > > - Data migration between X.0 and (X+1).0 should be automated, when
> > > data
> > > migration between X.0 and X.5 might not be done with a tool.
> > >
> > > - But when migrating for X.5 to (X+1).0, then a tool *must* be
> > > included
> > > to guarantee data migration.
> > >
> > > Ok, the vote now:
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
> > > [ ] +/- 0 : I have no idea, or I don't share this idea, but better
> > > this
> > > one than no scheme
> > > [ ] -1 : Not a good idea.
> > >
> > > Please, feel free to comment your choice, because we will have to give
> > > an explaination to our users !
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot !
> > > Emmanuel
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme

[Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>]

Chris,

I think series is 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 ...  There will be no version numbers
other than those in this series like say 1.7.  This way we can jump up to
higher version numbers quicker which I think shows well the maturity level
of the software.

Alex

On 5/27/07, Chris Custine <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [x] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
>
> Sounds good to me guys.  One thing that wasn't clear to me though, are we
> literally talking about 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 progression or are you talking
> about any non whole number (like 1.5, 1.6, 1.7) for transitional
> versions?  Either way is fine with me, I just wanted to make sure I
> understood correctly.
>
> I like it, lets go for it.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On 5/25/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > we have had many mails exchanged, many convo at ApacheCon EU this month,
> > about which is the best versionning scheme for ADS. Strange enough,
> > after a first burst of idea, things just cool down a little bit.
> >
> > We now have to make a decision, though this vote.
> >
> > Lately, there was some kind of agreement about this scheme :
> >
> > - X.0 versions will be stable versions (like 1.0.2)
> >
> > - X.5 versions will be transitonal versions, which means some more
> > featurzes can be included (like 1.5.1)
> >
> > - (X+1).0 version will be the next stable version (like 2.0.1)
> >
> > - When (X+1) version is issued, then the X version will be terminated
> > (no more evolution, only important bug fixes)
> >
> > - X.0 and X.5 version might be tested against VSLDAP compliance, if
> > needed
> >
> > - Data migration between X.0 and (X+1).0 should be automated, when data
> > migration between X.0 and X.5 might not be done with a tool.
> >
> > - But when migrating for X.5 to (X+1).0, then a tool *must* be included
> > to guarantee data migration.
> >
> > Ok, the vote now:
> >
> > [ ] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
> > [ ] +/- 0 : I have no idea, or I don't share this idea, but better this
> > one than no scheme
> > [ ] -1 : Not a good idea.
> >
> > Please, feel free to comment your choice, because we will have to give
> > an explaination to our users !
> >
> > Thanks a lot !
> > Emmanuel
> >
>
>

Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme

[Chris Custine <ch...@gmail.com>]

Yeah, I think this is fine.  I just wasn't sure if I was reading it wrong.

Sounds great!

Chris

On 5/27/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Chris Custine a écrit :
>
> > [x] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
> >
> > Sounds good to me guys.  One thing that wasn't clear to me though, are
> we
> > literally talking about 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 progression or are you
> talking
> > about any non whole number (like 1.5, 1.6, 1.7) for transitional
> > versions?
> > Either way is fine with me, I just wanted to make sure I understood
> > correctly.
>
> 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 progression should be ok, to keep the semantic clear.
> We can go for any 1.5.X versions if needed.
>
> wdyt ?
>
>

Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme

[Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>]

Chris Custine a écrit :

> [x] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
>
> Sounds good to me guys.  One thing that wasn't clear to me though, are we
> literally talking about 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 progression or are you talking
> about any non whole number (like 1.5, 1.6, 1.7) for transitional 
> versions?
> Either way is fine with me, I just wanted to make sure I understood
> correctly.

1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 progression should be ok, to keep the semantic clear. 
We can go for any 1.5.X versions if needed.

wdyt ?

Re: [Vote] Versionning scheme

[Chris Custine <ch...@gmail.com>]

[x] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me

Sounds good to me guys.  One thing that wasn't clear to me though, are we
literally talking about 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 progression or are you talking
about any non whole number (like 1.5, 1.6, 1.7) for transitional versions?
Either way is fine with me, I just wanted to make sure I understood
correctly.

I like it, lets go for it.

Chris



On 5/25/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> we have had many mails exchanged, many convo at ApacheCon EU this month,
> about which is the best versionning scheme for ADS. Strange enough,
> after a first burst of idea, things just cool down a little bit.
>
> We now have to make a decision, though this vote.
>
> Lately, there was some kind of agreement about this scheme :
>
> - X.0 versions will be stable versions (like 1.0.2)
>
> - X.5 versions will be transitonal versions, which means some more
> featurzes can be included (like 1.5.1)
>
> - (X+1).0 version will be the next stable version (like 2.0.1)
>
> - When (X+1) version is issued, then the X version will be terminated
> (no more evolution, only important bug fixes)
>
> - X.0 and X.5 version might be tested against VSLDAP compliance, if needed
>
> - Data migration between X.0 and (X+1).0 should be automated, when data
> migration between X.0 and X.5 might not be done with a tool.
>
> - But when migrating for X.5 to (X+1).0, then a tool *must* be included
> to guarantee data migration.
>
> Ok, the vote now:
>
> [ ] +1 : This numbering scheme fits me
> [ ] +/- 0 : I have no idea, or I don't share this idea, but better this
> one than no scheme
> [ ] -1 : Not a good idea.
>
> Please, feel free to comment your choice, because we will have to give
> an explaination to our users !
>
> Thanks a lot !
> Emmanuel
>