Re: [jboss-dev] Re: jgroups version names

Thanks for addressing my other concerns :-) Sure, I'll do that from now on Dimitris Andreadis wrote: > 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? >>