Karl Wright 2012-08-27, 12:39
Piergiorgio Lucidi 2012-09-05, 09:44
Karl Wright 2012-09-05, 18:07
Karl Wright 2012-09-13, 13:01
-Re: Winding down the 0.7 release, already??
Piergiorgio Lucidi 2012-09-13, 14:06
+1 from me to start releasing the next version as 1.0.
Taking a look at the current algorithm used by Maven for comparing versions
, and at the Versioning page , I don't see any problem.
 - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Versioning
2012/9/13 Karl Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The more I think about this, the more I think we may well be able to
> segregate ManifoldCF into "major releases" over time. Some of the
> very large tickets (for example, multi-server crawling) will almost
> certainly have a big impact on practically everything ManifoldCF does.
> I propose, then, that our major releases coincide with these very
> significant framework changes.
> That would imply that we can continue to have 0.xxx releases for quite
> some time, but since we did not plan on such an arrangement in
> advance, and since we want tools like Maven to work with our version
> numbers, I propose that we begin the 1.xxx series of releases right
> now, in this current release. Furthermore, we would include a minor
> level for patch releases in each version number. For example:
> 1.0.0 - release on Sept 30
> 1.1.0 - release on December 31
> The only question I have is what will Maven's version comparison logic
> do when it sees a version like this:
> Hopefully it will recognize that this is a higher version than 1.2.0?
> Mavenistas, what say you? If Maven doesn't work right with this, we'd
> want to reserve digits in advance, e.g.
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Karl Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think there are any hard rules about what constitutes a 1.0
> > release, except perhaps some subjective measure of completeness, and
> > some measure of backwards compatibility support. For example, Lucene
> > insures that every major release number (3.x, 4.x) are
> > index-compatible.
> > I don't know what the equivalent major release equivalent would be for
> > ManifoldCF. We have a mature database schema which self-upgrades, so
> > that is not going to work in the same way as Lucene indexes. We
> > *could* just keep counting: 0.7, 0.8. 0.9, 0.10, 0.11 etc. But that
> > gets cumbersome too.
> > Karl
> > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Piergiorgio Lucidi
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Taking a look at all the recent fixes, I think that we could release a
> >> version of ManifoldCF because there are many improvements:
> >> I don't know what rules are defined for calling it as "1.0", but in the
> >> meanwhile we could release a 0.7 version.
> >> Personally I think that this new release could be named 1.0, but this
> is my
> >> feeling :)
> >> Piergiorgio
> >> 2012/8/27 Karl Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Hi Folks,
> >>> It's already time to start winding down the 0.7 release.
> >>> Before this is done, I think we need the following:
> >>> (1) Voting on the current outstanding SharePoint-2007 plugin release.
> >>> Still need 2 votes.
> >>> (2) Completion of, and voting on the new SharePoint-2010 plugin
> >>> (3) Completion of all outstanding tickets marked "Fix in ManifoldCF
> >>> I'd also like to explore what the criteria should be for calling a
> >>> release "1.0". It seems to me that Jukka and others might have an
> >>> idea of when this would be appropriate. Does anyone have any thoughts
> >>> on this matter?
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Karl
> >>> --
> >>> Piergiorgio Lucidi
> >>> http://www.open4dev.com
Karl Wright 2012-09-13, 23:36