I adopted Scott's versioning scheme ([1]), with major, minor and patch numbers. Yes, when there's a need to release a CR or beta, I name the version 2.6.2.CR2 (for example). If you look into repository.jboss.org ([2]), you'll see that the versioning since 2.4.x is consistent, ditto for Maven ([3]). Dimitris Andreadis wrote: > Is jgroups following any standard in the naming of its versions? > > (e.g. http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JBossProductVersioning) > > So far, what goes into the repositories has been consistently > inconsistent :-) > > E.g. look in the legacy repo > https://svn.jboss.org/repos/repository.jboss.org/jgroups/ > > Or the new maven repo (shouldn't that be org/jgroups?) > https://svn.jboss.org/repos/repository.jboss.org/maven2/jgroups/jgroups/ > > It could have an impact when we try to apply OSGi versioning rules. > [1] http://javagroups.cvs.sourceforge.net/javagroups/JGroups/src/org/jgroups/... [2] https://svn.jboss.org/repos/repository.jboss.org/jgroups/ [3] https://svn.jboss.org/repos/repository.jboss.org/maven2/jgroups/jgroups/

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?

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? >>

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

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

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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

You are confused by this?!?!?! Surely you jest... On Mar 6, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Trustin Lee wrote: > 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 ----------------------------- Steve Ebersole Project Lead http://hibernate.org steve(a)hibernate.org _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

LOL! It was a joke about how confusing this versioning scheme is... On Mar 6, 2008, at 11:10 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: > It would be my pleasure to be a jest if I can learn something. On top ----------------------------- Steve Ebersole Project Lead http://hibernate.org steve(a)hibernate.org _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development