In order to: a) adhere to the official jboss.org rules for versioning [1] and b) to avoid causing anyone who's installed an early milestone (eg., 4.0.0.M2) to have to first UNINSTALL before being able to update to our 4.0.0.Beta1 release Eclipse, we've renamed the first milestone, M1, to Alpha1. This allows us to move through the OSGi ASCII sequence Alpha, Beta, CR, Final, and GA, with each more stable milestone able to act as an update for the previous. * JIRA targets in JBIDE and JBDS have been renamed. Your issues will move automatically to the new version targets. Please update your queries. * JBoss Tools' parent pom is now 4.0.0.Alpha1 instead of 4.0.0.M1. I've updated all the components' root poms in both JBT and JBDS SVN trees to use the newly versioned parent pom, and published the new pom to nexus. See also JBDS-1987 and JBDS-2251. [1] https://community.jboss.org/wiki/JBossProjectVersioning -- Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio http://nick.divbyzero.com

Yes, but the conflict here is that Max wants the qualifier to start with the name (M1, Alpha1), not a timestamp (as we did for JBoss Tools 3.3 / JBDS 5). This is to avoid being able to incorrectly "upgrade" from M2 to M1 should the timestamp of the M2 build be older than the M1. -- To allow OSGi ASCII ordering it's either (NOTE: dates are hypothetical): 4.0.0.20120830-M1 4.0.0.20120930-M2 4.0.0.Beta1-20121030 4.0.0.CR1-20121115 4.0.0.Final-20121130 or 4.0.0.Alpha1-20120830 4.0.0.Alpha2-20120930 4.0.0.Beta1-20121030 4.0.0.CR1-20121115 4.0.0.Final-20121130 Personally, I prefer the symmetry of the second option. Note too that 0-9 < A-Z < a-z, so if we move forward w/ Alpha1, users would have to uninstall that early build to upgrade to features with a timestamp-Mx qualifier, as 2012 < Alpha1. N On 08/30/2012 11:14 AM, Rodney Russ wrote: > milestone releases are supported by those rules of versioning: > > "That brings us to case number two, which is projects that chose to > use milestone releases, instead of the more traditional alpha, beta, > ..." > > ----- "Nick Boldt" <nboldt(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> In order to: >> >> a) adhere to the official jboss.org rules for versioning [1] and >> >> b) to avoid causing anyone who's installed an early milestone (eg., >> 4.0.0.M2) to have to first UNINSTALL before being able to update to >> our >> 4.0.0.Beta1 release Eclipse, >> >> we've renamed the first milestone, M1, to Alpha1. >> >> This allows us to move through the OSGi ASCII sequence Alpha, Beta, >> CR, >> Final, and GA, with each more stable milestone able to act as an >> update >> for the previous. >> >> * JIRA targets in JBIDE and JBDS have been renamed. Your issues will >> move automatically to the new version targets. Please update your >> queries. >> >> * JBoss Tools' parent pom is now 4.0.0.Alpha1 instead of 4.0.0.M1. >> I've >> updated all the components' root poms in both JBT and JBDS SVN trees >> to >> use the newly versioned parent pom, and published the new pom to >> nexus. >> >> See also JBDS-1987 and JBDS-2251. >> >> [1] https://community.jboss.org/wiki/JBossProjectVersioning >> >> -- >> Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat >> Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio >> http://nick.divbyzero.com

Ah, understood now and I agree with that approach. I had misunderstood that you thought milestones weren't allowed. ----- "Nick Boldt" <nboldt(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Yes, but the conflict here is that Max wants the qualifier to start > with > the name (M1, Alpha1), not a timestamp (as we did for JBoss Tools 3.3 > / > JBDS 5). This is to avoid being able to incorrectly "upgrade" from M2 > to > M1 should the timestamp of the M2 build be older than the M1. > > -- > > To allow OSGi ASCII ordering it's either (NOTE: dates are > hypothetical): > > 4.0.0.20120830-M1 > 4.0.0.20120930-M2 > 4.0.0.Beta1-20121030 > 4.0.0.CR1-20121115 > 4.0.0.Final-20121130 > > or > > 4.0.0.Alpha1-20120830 > 4.0.0.Alpha2-20120930 > 4.0.0.Beta1-20121030 > 4.0.0.CR1-20121115 > 4.0.0.Final-20121130 > > Personally, I prefer the symmetry of the second option. > > Note too that 0-9 < A-Z < a-z, so if we move forward w/ Alpha1, users > > would have to uninstall that early build to upgrade to features with a > > timestamp-Mx qualifier, as 2012 < Alpha1. > > N > > > On 08/30/2012 11:14 AM, Rodney Russ wrote: >> milestone releases are supported by those rules of versioning: >> >> "That brings us to case number two, which is projects that chose to > use milestone releases, instead of the more traditional alpha, beta, > ..." >> >> ----- "Nick Boldt" <nboldt(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> In order to: >>> >>> a) adhere to the official jboss.org rules for versioning [1] and >>> >>> b) to avoid causing anyone who's installed an early milestone > (eg., >>> 4.0.0.M2) to have to first UNINSTALL before being able to update > to >>> our >>> 4.0.0.Beta1 release Eclipse, >>> >>> we've renamed the first milestone, M1, to Alpha1. >>> >>> This allows us to move through the OSGi ASCII sequence Alpha, > Beta, >>> CR, >>> Final, and GA, with each more stable milestone able to act as an >>> update >>> for the previous. >>> >>> * JIRA targets in JBIDE and JBDS have been renamed. Your issues > will >>> move automatically to the new version targets. Please update your >>> queries. >>> >>> * JBoss Tools' parent pom is now 4.0.0.Alpha1 instead of 4.0.0.M1. >>> I've >>> updated all the components' root poms in both JBT and JBDS SVN > trees >>> to >>> use the newly versioned parent pom, and published the new pom to >>> nexus. >>> >>> See also JBDS-1987 and JBDS-2251. >>> >>> [1] https://community.jboss.org/wiki/JBossProjectVersioning >>> >>> -- >>> Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat >>> Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio >>> http://nick.divbyzero.com > > -- > Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat > Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio > http://nick.divbyzero.com