Re: [jboss-dev] jgroups version names

You are right. I was confused. :) According to the Wiki page Dimitris mentioned [1], there's no _CP suffix. Is it deprecated by .SP suffix? [1] http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JBossProductVersioning 2008-03-06 (목), 09:17 -0500, Ian Springer 쓰시길: > Trustin, > > You may be thinking of the cumulative patch versioning convention, > X.Y.Z.ABC_CPnn, e.g.: 4.0.5.GA_CP08 > > Dimitris Andreadis wrote: >> No, it's, X.Y.Z.SP1, X.Y.Z.SP2, ... >> >> SP comes after GA alphabetically, so we are safe. >> >> Trustin Lee wrote: >>> I thought it was X.Y.Z.GA_SP1 and X.Y.Z.GA_SP2 according to the >>> recent >>> discussion, no? I also find GA_SPn has a clearer meaning. >>> >>> 2008-03-04 (화), 14:41 +0200, Dimitris Andreadis 쓰시길: >>>> I think the existing internal versioning scheme of jgroups is >>>> fine, >>>> I'm just asking for consistency when putting the binaries in the >>>> repositories, e.g. >>>> >>>> X.Y.Z.Beta1 >>>> X.Y.Z.Beta2 >>>> X.Y.Z.CR1 >>>> X.Y.Z.CR2 >>>> X.Y.Z.CR3 >>>> X.Y.Z.CR4 >>>> X.Y.Z.GA >>>> X.Y.Z.SP1 >>>> X.Y.Z.SP2 >>>> >>>> Bela Ban wrote: >>>>> Okay, well some releases are adhering to this standard... :-) >>>>> >>>>> I didn't care much for this because it is stupid. Relying on >>>>> strings for version comparison is terrible, as we have to parse >>>>> the >>>>> strings into component parts (numbers) anyway. Plus we end up >>>>> with >>>>> kludges like changing RC1 to CR1 so alphabetical ordering still >>>>> works ... >>>>> >>>>> A much better way, and that's what I thought we had adopted, is >>>>> the >>>>> scheme suggested by Scott in >>>>> http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=77231. >>>>> This allows us to use shorts for major, minor and patch versions, >>>>> and comparisons become simple. >>>>> >>>>> Note that we don't care about comparisons between 2.6.2.CR1 and >>>>> 2.6.2.GA, because the scheme suggested by Scott doesn't care >>>>> about >>>>> the qualifier. These 2 versions are both the same the point of >>>>> the >>>>> version number. >>>>> >>>>> Having said that, if this cannot convince you, I can adhere to >>>>> the >>>>> version numbering scheme, that's not an issue for me, as the >>>>> underlying version stays the same, it is just the strig that >>>>> changes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dimitris Andreadis wrote: >>>>>> - You're missing some '.GA' suffixes (e.g. 2.5.2 in both repos, >>>>>> 2.6.2 maven only) >>>>>> - Some versions appear both with & without the '.GA' suffix >>>>>> (e.g. >>>>>> latest 2.6.2 in the legacy repo) >>>>>> - In some cases using '-' instead of '.' (e.g. 2.5.0-GA, maven >>>>>> repo) >>>>>> >>>>>> Am I missing something? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >> _______________________________________________ >> jboss-development mailing list >> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development > > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development -- Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development