On Jun 5, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; 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: 1. I would like to move what is currently in master to a 1-0-stable branch 2. Then I would like to update master's build version to 1.1.0-pre 3. 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 i need a crash course on cherry picking Then, going forward: 1. Any patch releases for 1.0.x would come from the 1-0-stable branch 2. When 1.1.0 is released, the new version would be tagged from master, then branched into a 1-1-stable branch, then the 1-0-stable branch would be deleted 3. Master would then be updated to 1.2.0-pre The biggest reason for this is it allows continued work on new features to be merged into their release version from their development branch when ready, rather than waiting until right before a release to put it all together. If we don't do that, and merge something like Notifier into master when it's "ready", we can no longer release maintenance versions for the current stable release because those new features would be included. Thoughts? _______________________________________________ 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

On Jun 6, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: On Jun 5, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; 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: 1. I would like to move what is currently in master to a 1-0-stable branch 2. Then I would like to update master's build version to 1.1.0-pre 3. 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 i need a crash course on cherry picking 1. make your change on master, commit and push 2. git log 3. copy the SHA from your commit 4. git checkout 1.0-stable 5. git cherry-pick <SHA from log> 6. push to 1.0-stable 7. profit Then, going forward: 1. Any patch releases for 1.0.x would come from the 1-0-stable branch 2. When 1.1.0 is released, the new version would be tagged from master, then branched into a 1-1-stable branch, then the 1-0-stable branch would be deleted 3. Master would then be updated to 1.2.0-pre The biggest reason for this is it allows continued work on new features to be merged into their release version from their development branch when ready, rather than waiting until right before a release to put it all together. If we don't do that, and merge something like Notifier into master when it's "ready", we can no longer release maintenance versions for the current stable release because those new features would be included. Thoughts? _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

On Jun 6, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: +1 on the flow , just not sure for the naming if we need the suffixes "stable" and "pre" I like the pre suffix because it is added to the built files. Otherwise, the built file would be versioned as 1.1.0 for example which would be misleading since it hasn't been released yet. As for the stable suffix, I can go either way on that. I like it to let people know that branch is our stable branch but if others don't like it, I am fine with not doing that. On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Jun 5, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; 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: > > > 1. I would like to move what is currently in master to a 1-0-stable > branch > 2. Then I would like to update master's build version to 1.1.0-pre > 3. 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 > > > i need a crash course on cherry picking > > > > 1. make your change on master, commit and push > 2. git log > 3. copy the SHA from your commit > 4. git checkout 1.0-stable > 5. git cherry-pick <SHA from log> > 6. push to 1.0-stable > 7. profit > > > > Then, going forward: > > > 1. Any patch releases for 1.0.x would come from the 1-0-stable branch > 2. When 1.1.0 is released, the new version would be tagged from > master, then branched into a 1-1-stable branch, then the 1-0-stable branch > would be deleted > 3. Master would then be updated to 1.2.0-pre > > > The biggest reason for this is it allows continued work on new features > to be merged into their release version from their development branch when > ready, rather than waiting until right before a release to put it all > together. If we don't do that, and merge something like Notifier into > master when it's "ready", we can no longer release maintenance versions for > the current stable release because those new features would be included. > > Thoughts? > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

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

+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)

-- qmx _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:33:10AM -0500, Kris Borchers wrote: > I am fine with -dev, just wanted something and -pre is what I was used > to with jQuery but -dev is fine too. remember that I only call decisions on ties - the team needs to decide, and asap. -stable got two rejections already

-dev vs -pre is something we can discuss quick :P -- qmx _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

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!

+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

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > 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? > 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(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 > -- 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

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(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > 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? > 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(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 > -- 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

i don't really have any feelings either way, i vote for how jquery does it On Jun 6, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; 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. > +1 I could live with a "1.2.3-stable" branch (for a 1.2.3 release), but do not like it that much. Not said that I'd fight my life for not having -stable branches :) > > 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. :) > fun++ -Matthias > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> >> 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? >> > > 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(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 >> > > > > -- > 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 > -- 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

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(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > 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? > > 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(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 > > > > -- > 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

+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(a)redhat.com&gt; 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(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > 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(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 > > > > > > > > -- > > 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

On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:40:34 +0200 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > +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 > > > > > there will be NO Alpha, BETA, CR, WHAT_NOT :) > > we just use numbers. > haven't said that WHAT_EVER (except -SNAPSHOT) is necessary :-) -SNAPSHOT is actually not necessary neither, but provides some free goodies in Maven world. > > > ... > > > > +1 on further discussion ;-) > > > > Karel > > > > On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:51:01 -0500 > > Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; 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(a)apache.org&gt; > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org > > > 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? > > > > > > > > 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(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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

NO usage of .CR; .FINAL etc On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt;wrote: > -SNAPSHOT is an execption. > > So .CR; .FINAL etc :) > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:40:34 +0200 >> Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> > >> > > +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 >> > > >> > >> > >> > there will be NO Alpha, BETA, CR, WHAT_NOT :) >> > >> > we just use numbers. >> > >> >> haven't said that WHAT_EVER (except -SNAPSHOT) is necessary :-) >> >> -SNAPSHOT is actually not necessary neither, but provides some free >> goodies in >> Maven world. >> >> > >> > > ... >> > > >> > > +1 on further discussion ;-) >> > > >> > > Karel >> > > >> > > On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:51:01 -0500 >> > > Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; 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(a)apache.org >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > 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? >> > > > > >> > > > > 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(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 >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > 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 >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- 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