[jboss-dev] Re: jgroups version names

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

fyi - alphabetical ordering is *essential* if we want to have proper dependency checking in place.

Relying on strings might be terrible but it is the only thing we got plus its dead simple.

Saying you don't care about being able to compare/differentiate 2.6.2.CR1 and 2.6.2.GA is also bad since
there actually *is* a difference between these.

Being able to mechanically compare these is important for having good support dependency checking, transative dependencies, warning/error flagging and just a general good help for support people to be able to see what the users are *actually* using.

-max

> 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?
>>>
>



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/