Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
Kenney Westerhof wrote:
+1, as long as it's done like this:
- use major.minor on trunk
- major.[minor+1] is either api breaking or has new features
- bugfixes should be major.minor.micro, from a maintenance branch for
major.minor.
Minor releases can't break APIs, we
my late +1
Vincent
2007/3/1, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
The impetus for this is wanting to release the surefire plugin that
has a tiny bug in it. We are versioning our Maven release
major.minor.micro so why don't we do the same with our plugin and
treat everything like we're going
+1 with the same remark about not having the trailing .0 on the first
release.
Brett Porter wrote:
+1
(I was going to do that with the 2.3 release, except that it had had
junit4 support added).
Aesthetically, I prefer to drop the trailing 0 on a first point release,
but don't mind either w
Kenney Westerhof wrote:
+1, as long as it's done like this:
- use major.minor on trunk
- major.[minor+1] is either api breaking or has new features
- bugfixes should be major.minor.micro, from a maintenance branch for
major.minor.
Minor releases can't break APIs, we agreed on that a long time
+1
- Joakim
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The impetus for this is wanting to release the surefire plugin that
> has a tiny bug in it. We are versioning our Maven release
> major.minor.micro so why don't we do the same with our plugin and
> treat everything like we're going to do small incrementa
+1, as long as it's done like this:
- use major.minor on trunk
- major.[minor+1] is either api breaking or has new features
- bugfixes should be major.minor.micro, from a maintenance branch for
major.minor.
so -0 on bugfix versions in the poms on trunk.
-- Kenney
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
Th
+1
On 2 Mar 2007, at 02:20, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
The impetus for this is wanting to release the surefire plugin that
has a tiny bug in it. We are versioning our Maven release
major.minor.micro so why don't we do the same with our plugin and
treat everything like we're going to do sma
sounds great, +1
Stéphane
On 3/2/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The impetus for this is wanting to release the surefire plugin that
has a tiny bug in it. We are versioning our Maven release
major.minor.micro so why don't we do the same with our plugin and
treat everything li
+1
Emmanuel
Jason van Zyl a écrit :
Hi,
The impetus for this is wanting to release the surefire plugin that has
a tiny bug in it. We are versioning our Maven release major.minor.micro
so why don't we do the same with our plugin and treat everything like
we're going to do small incremental r
+1
Arnaud
On 3/2/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The impetus for this is wanting to release the surefire plugin that
has a tiny bug in it. We are versioning our Maven release
major.minor.micro so why don't we do the same with our plugin and
treat everything like we're going t
+1
On 3/2/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The impetus for this is wanting to release the surefire plugin that
has a tiny bug in it. We are versioning our Maven release
major.minor.micro so why don't we do the same with our plugin and
treat everything like we're going to do smal
?
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:21 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: [vote] Trying to use standard versioning
Hi,
The impetus for this is wanting to release the surefire plugin that
has a tiny bug in it. We are versioning
+1
(I was going to do that with the 2.3 release, except that it had had
junit4 support added).
Aesthetically, I prefer to drop the trailing 0 on a first point
release, but don't mind either way as long as we're consistent.
- Brett
On 02/03/2007, at 10:20 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
T
+1
On 3/1/07, Eric Redmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
standardize 'em
On 3/1/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> +1
>
> I'm running into the same thing with the remote-resources. A one line
fix
> shouldn't be a whole +0.1.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Thursday 01 March 2007 21:20, Jason
pha and beta releases be handled?
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:21 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: [vote] Trying to use standard versioning
Hi,
The impetus for this is wanting to release the surefire plugin that
has
+1
standardize 'em
On 3/1/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
I'm running into the same thing with the remote-resources. A one line fix
shouldn't be a whole +0.1.
Dan
On Thursday 01 March 2007 21:20, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The impetus for this is wanting to release the
How will alpha and beta releases be handled?
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:21 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: [vote] Trying to use standard versioning
Hi,
The impetus for this is wanting to release the surefire
+1
I'm running into the same thing with the remote-resources. A one line fix
shouldn't be a whole +0.1.
Dan
On Thursday 01 March 2007 21:20, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The impetus for this is wanting to release the surefire plugin that
> has a tiny bug in it. We are versioning our Maven
Hi,
The impetus for this is wanting to release the surefire plugin that
has a tiny bug in it. We are versioning our Maven release
major.minor.micro so why don't we do the same with our plugin and
treat everything like we're going to do small incremental releases
like we should be doing. I
19 matches
Mail list logo
