+1 for not having -stable branch

+1 for doing version bumps, especially if semantically similar to

...
1.2.0.Alpha1-SNAPSHOT
(bump) 1.2.0.Alpha1
1.2.0.Beta1-SNAPSHOT
(bump) 1.2.0.Beta1
1.2.0.CR1-SNAPSHOT
(ups, bump quickfix) 1.2.0.Beta2
1.2.0.CR1-SNAPSHOT

...

+1 on further discussion ;-)

Karel

On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:51:01 -0500
Kris Borchers <kris@redhat.com> wrote:

> OK, for the sake of peace I will concede to no stable branch so that we can
> move on. If it doesn't work well we can always change it.
>
> Everyone else please voice your opinions still so we can get agreement on
> this. We don't all have to agree which is why we discuss. :)
>
> On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Kris Borchers <kris@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Douglas Campos <qmx@qmx.me> 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?
> >
> > Not liking "stable branch". For me that is a TAG (immutable).
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> +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@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@lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > aerogear-dev@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@lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev