You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> on 2008/01/20 17:35:32 UTC
VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
With our numbering scheme for 1.3.0-snapshot we are driving ourselves and
our users crazy: how can we still have 1.3.0-snapshots when 1.3.0 is final?
1.3-snapshot is clear: it is the current status for 1.3-head, it is also the
default numbering scheme used for maven version ranges. When we now update
our poms to reflect 1.3.1-snapshot status, *everybody* that wants to use
snapshots needs to update their poms, whereas it used to be 1.3-snapshot and
automagically worked.
Therefore I propose to from now and onto eternity to never use 1.x.0 as a
version number and use the common, sane version numbering strategy which
reads:
1.3-SNAPSHOT > 1.3.x > 1.3 > 1.2-SNAPSHOT > 1.2.x > 1.2 > 1.1-SNAPSHOT >
1.1.x > 1.1
So for 2.0, or 1.4, or whatever version we are going to use for our next
release (let's use 2.0 as an example) I propose the following version in our
trunk/pom.xml (not applying it *now*, but when we have 1.3.1 or 1.3.2 out
the door):
<version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
I also propose to re-version current head to:
<version>1.3-SNAPSHOT</version>
Which will remove any and all confusion whether someone needs
1.3.0-SNAPSHOTto get snapshots,
1.3.1-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.2-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.3-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.4-SNAPSHOT,
1.3.5-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.6-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.7-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.8-SNAPSHOT,
1.3.9-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.10-SNAPSHOT, ad infinitum.
[ ] Yes, this numbering scheme seems reasonable
[ ] No, I like what we have now because....
Martijn
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Juergen Donnerstag <ju...@gmail.com>.
[x] Yes, this numbering scheme seems reasonable
Juergen
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 20, 2008 8:35 AM, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [x Yes, this numbering scheme seems reasonable
-igor
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
[ x ] Yes, this numbering scheme seems reasonable
Eelco
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org>.
On Jan 20, 2008 5:35 PM, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [x] Yes, this numbering scheme seems reasonable
>
Frank
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Nice catch, thx!
On 1/30/08, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> i will update the quickstart page on the website as soon as the first
> build of 1.3-SNAPSHOT is available in the wicketstuff.org maven repo.
>
> Gerolf
>
> On Jan 30, 2008 10:55 PM, Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 2008 10:52 PM, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Frank: if you would take care of the honors?
> > >
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > Frank
> >
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org>.
On Jan 30, 2008 10:58 PM, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i will update the quickstart page on the website as soon as the first
> build of 1.3-SNAPSHOT is available in the wicketstuff.org maven repo.
>
Bamboo is now finished choking on it, so 1.3-SNAPSHOT is now in repo.
Frank
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com>.
i will update the quickstart page on the website as soon as the first
build of 1.3-SNAPSHOT is available in the wicketstuff.org maven repo.
Gerolf
On Jan 30, 2008 10:55 PM, Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 10:52 PM, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Frank: if you would take care of the honors?
> >
>
> Done.
>
> Frank
>
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Thx!
On 1/30/08, Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2008 10:52 PM, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Frank: if you would take care of the honors?
> >
>
> Done.
>
> Frank
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org>.
On Jan 30, 2008 10:52 PM, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Frank: if you would take care of the honors?
>
Done.
Frank
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
I call this vote in favor of returning to 1.3-SNAPSHOT... with 9 +1 votes
(incl. mine)
Frank: if you would take care of the honors?
Martijn
On 1/21/08, Gwyn Evans <gw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [X] Yes, this numbering scheme seems reasonable
>
> /Gwyn
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Gwyn Evans <gw...@gmail.com>.
> [X] Yes, this numbering scheme seems reasonable
/Gwyn
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
+1 to change it
On 1/20/08, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With our numbering scheme for 1.3.0-snapshot we are driving ourselves and
> our users crazy: how can we still have 1.3.0-snapshots when 1.3.0 is final?
> 1.3-snapshot is clear: it is the current status for 1.3-head, it is also the
> default numbering scheme used for maven version ranges. When we now update
> our poms to reflect 1.3.1-snapshot status, *everybody* that wants to use
> snapshots needs to update their poms, whereas it used to be 1.3-snapshot and
> automagically worked.
>
>
> Therefore I propose to from now and onto eternity to never use 1.x.0 as a
> version number and use the common, sane version numbering strategy which
> reads:
>
> 1.3-SNAPSHOT > 1.3.x > 1.3 > 1.2-SNAPSHOT > 1.2.x > 1.2 > 1.1-SNAPSHOT >
> 1.1.x > 1.1
>
> So for 2.0, or 1.4, or whatever version we are going to use for our next
> release (let's use 2.0 as an example) I propose the following version in our
> trunk/pom.xml (not applying it *now*, but when we have 1.3.1 or 1.3.2 out
> the door):
>
> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>
> I also propose to re-version current head to:
>
> <version>1.3-SNAPSHOT</version>
>
> Which will remove any and all confusion whether someone needs
> 1.3.0-SNAPSHOTto get snapshots,
> 1.3.1-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.2-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.3-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.4-SNAPSHOT,
> 1.3.5-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.6-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.7-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.8-SNAPSHOT,
> 1.3.9-SNAPSHOT, 1.3.10-SNAPSHOT, ad infinitum.
>
> [ ] Yes, this numbering scheme seems reasonable
> [ ] No, I like what we have now because....
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.0 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0
>
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com>.
>
> [ X ] Yes, this numbering scheme seems reasonable
gerolf
Re: VOTE: return to 1.3 numbering because 1.3.0-snapshot and 1.3.1-snapshot is driving me crazy
Posted by Janne Hietamäki <ja...@apache.org>.
> [x] Yes, this numbering scheme seems reasonable
> [ ] No, I like what we have now because....