[jboss-dev] Re: jgroups version names

[Bela Ban]

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?
>>

-- 
Bela Ban
Lead JGroups / Clustering Team
JBoss - a division of Red Hat