Re: [aerogear-dev] Versioning

On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me&gt; wrote: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 02:56:53PM -0500, Kris Borchers wrote: > > So we haven't talked about this for a while so I thought I would stir > > the fire again. Does anyone have any objection to JS managing our > > versions as such: > > > > I would like to move what is currently in master to a 1-0-stable branch > > Then I would like to update master's build version to 1.1.0-pre > > All work is done on the master branch then if the change is applicable > > to 1.0.0, it can be cherry-picked into the 1-0-stable branch > My take on this: > > -1 for the stable label - if people want stable, they want releases > I do not like -stable as well. And yes. the _final_ TAG is the release. I do agree here! Can you, and everyone else be more specific here. Do you not like the label, or the whole idea of a stable branch?

> +1 for the version bump - java(ish) projects already does this via > maven-release-plugin (1.1.0-SNAPSHOT) - but I think -pre isn't clear as > -dev is (we use .dev on jruby) > I don't have strong feelings for -dev -snapshot, or what ever :-) IMO both, for example, -dev or -snapshot, make it clear: current dev is here. So, I am happy with -dev or -snapshot (or -pre) :) > > -- > qmx > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev