atom feed9 messages in org.jdom.jdom-interestRe: [jdom-interest] Why are version n...
FromSent OnAttachments
Rolf LearMar 17, 2012 6:00 am 
Paul LibbrechtMar 17, 2012 6:21 am 
Jason HunterMar 17, 2012 8:44 am 
Rolf LearMar 17, 2012 10:09 am 
Paul LibbrechtMar 17, 2012 10:48 am 
Rolf LearMar 17, 2012 11:55 am 
Paul LibbrechtMar 17, 2012 1:00 pm 
Brenner, MikeMar 19, 2012 3:23 am 
Rolf LearMar 19, 2012 3:48 am 
Subject:Re: [jdom-interest] Why are version numbers so complicated?
From:Rolf Lear (jd@tuis.net)
Date:Mar 19, 2012 3:48:04 am
List:org.jdom.jdom-interest

I think that is the close to the way it will happen... although I intend to go with a 3-digit version.

Also, I am curious about why you suggest 2.1 instead of 2.0 (or in my 3-digit thinking would it be 2.0.1 or 2.1.0?). The way you qualify it as being 'version 2.1 for the first production version' seems to imply that you expect 2.0 or something for the first non-production version.

I believe that the very first '2' release will be fully production-ready. The 'Easter' release date is for the 'final' and 'stable' release.

I have been convinced that the release will be just 'JDOM', and not 'JDOM2' and that the version number will reflect the difference. In essence, as you say, JDOM remains the same product as before, just a new version.

In my (current) way of 'sorting' out the version numbers, the three digits boil down to: a.b.c where 'a' is the 'API version', 'b' is the 'feature' version, and 'c' is the 'patch' version.

The major change to the API from JDOM 1.x.x to 2.x.x is reflected in the version number.

If any new features are added (in an API sable way) then the 'feature' version could be updated to 2.1.x, and any bug fixes to a particular feature version will be reflected in the final digit.

I do believe there will be some additional feature entry in to JDOM in the next year or so, so I expect there to be a 2.1.0 at some point (I am thinking XPath 2.0 support at a minimum), so while there may be some more 'regular' updates to JDOM, it does not imply that 2.0.0 is not production ready ... ;-)

So, I think, for the most part, you will find that the releases are similar to what you are suggesting (but a 3 digit version, and a the 'production ready' version will be at 2.0.0 not 2.1.0)

Rolf

On 19/03/2012 6:23 AM, Brenner, Mike wrote:

I did not do all the work you did on it, so I don't think of jdom version 2 as a
"different product called jdom2".

(BTW, the dual numbering of Java itself has always confused me -- is it java 1.7
or java 7 or java2 version 7 or java 2.7?)

My vote would go to JDOM version 2.1 for the first production version of the
Rolf Lear work, but I can't say that I would really care if you choose some other naming
convention.