[jboss-dev] jgroups version names

[Trustin Lee]

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 at lists.jboss.org
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> jboss-development mailing list
> >>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
> > _______________________________________________
> > jboss-development mailing list
> > jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development at 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/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-development/attachments/20080307/2f4e1f44/attachment.bin