Re: Shindig NEXT

[Ryan Baxter]

Resending with an email that is allowed to post to the spec list :)

OpenSocial Spec List, please see my original email below, thanks.

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Ryan Baxter <rbax...@apache.org> wrote:
> OpenSocial Spec List,
>
> Any interest in changing the way we version future spec releases? On
> the Shindig dev list we are discussing what the next version of
> Shindig should be. We want to stay aligned with the spec version to
> alleviate confusion but also stay within the constraints of maven
> versioning rules. From the discussion so far it seems like other
> specs and implementations follow a versioning scheme where the spec
> only uses major.minor versions and implementations use
> major.minor.revision. This allows implementation to release updates
> and fixes while staying compliant with a certain version of a
> specification.
>
> Sine we are so close to releasing 2.5.1 I propose we make this change
> post 2.5.1. For now Shindig will release updates to 2.5.0 using maven
> qualifiers, so the next release of 2.5.0 will be versioned
> 2.5.0-update1. In the future we would like to avoid using qualifiers
> for anything other than alpha/beta releases because it can effect
> version ranges in maven.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2013, at 17:52, Ryan Baxter <rbax...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone think it is work going to the OpenSocial list and asking
>>> if post 2.5.1 we stick to using only major.minor versioning? This
>>> allow Shindig to stick to use the revision field for updates that are
>>> not necessarily spec related.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Henry Saputra <henry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The OpenSocial specs have major.minor.revision versioning scheme, so the
>>>> discussion is either we follow OpenSocial versioning up to the "revision"
>>>> or just major.minor.
>>>>
>>>> If we want to follow up to the "revision" part then we need to add
>>>> "-updateXXX" or "rXXX" tail in Apache Shindig versioning which I think a
>>>> bit ugly (see Hadoop release versions, ugh)
>>>>
>>>> - Henry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Marcel Offermans <
>>>> marcel.o...@luminis.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it makes sense to use semantic versioning, as described here:
>>>>> http://semver.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> If indeed the specs are major.minor then you can implement with
>>>>> major.minor.patch
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings, Marcel
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Craig McClanahan <crai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW an approach to version numbers I have seen a lot is that the
>>>>>> major.minor version numbers match the spec being implemented (2.5 in this
>>>>>> case), but anything after that is totally up to the implementation. So,
>>>>>> 2.5.1 ... 2.5.2 ... etc. would be fine for improved implementations of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> 2.5 spec.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's also perfectly reasonable to think about 2.5.1-rc1 and 2.5.1-rc2
>>>>> (and
>>>>>> so on) for release candidates of 2.5.1 before a final 2.5.1 release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Ryan Baxter <rbax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Henry does JSF use revision numbers or do they stick to major and
>>>>>>> minor version only? If the revision numbers are not going to match
>>>>>>> anyways than maybe we shouldn't worry about calling the next Shindig
>>>>>>> release 2.5.1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Henry Saputra <henry....@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The next version of Shindig will contain the first release without PHP.
>>>>>>>> I believe that's worth a bump in revision part of the version to 2.5.1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @Ryan, I would love to keep it in-sync but Shindig will move faster
>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> spec development and it would be hard to keep up with the exact
>>>>> version.
>>>>>>>> I believe other projects like Apache Tomcat and Apache MyFaces (latest
>>>>>>>> release is 2.1.12 that implement JSF 2.1) that also implement open
>>>>> specs
>>>>>>>> follow its release version up to certain levels.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like @Matt's idea, we could release 2.5.1-alphaX releases but final
>>>>>>>> release should be 2.5.1 but branching early to add minor emergency
>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>> with 2.5.0-update1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Henry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Matt Franklin <
>>>>> m.ben.f...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 2013, at 20:03, Henry Saputra <henry....@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am actually still +1 for just 2.5.1. We agreed that Shindig version
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> adhere to OpenSocial specs up to minor version which in this case is
>>>>>>>>> 2.5.x
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What about developing in trunk at 2.5.1-alphaX and branching for fixes
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> 2.5.0-update1?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also think 2.5.1 should be relatively minor in changes to the
>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>> itself. Ideally, only additions and no breaking changes to existing
>>>>>>>>> interfaces, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Henry
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Ryan Baxter <rbax...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here is what I found on version numbers [1]. From what I gather
>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> reading that using 2.5.0.1 would be considered "non-standard". The
>>>>>>>>>>> only downside to this would be the version numbers would be compared
>>>>>>>>>>> as strings. We could use 2.5.0-fix1 which would be considered
>>>>>>>>>>> standard, but I don't think that buys us anything with regards to
>>>>>>>>>>> version comparison. I could pose a question to the Maven users list
>>>>>>>>>>> and see if they have any advice.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>> http://books.sonatype.com/mvnref-book/reference/pom-relationships-sect-pom-syntax.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Stanton Sievers <
>>>>> ssie...@apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1. Shindig-1924 is one such cleanup. I also agree with staying in
>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the spec.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would just want to make sure we have no technical or process
>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> maven artifacts (or the like) with 4 numbers in the version.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 2013 7:29 PM, "Ryan Baxter" <rbax...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The current version of trunk is set to 2.5.1. I am wondering what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people think of changing that to 2.5.0.1? There are a few cleanup
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes that have already been identified that would be good to
>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out there. At same time we want to stay in sync with the spec
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I don't think we want to release 2.5.1 yet. What does everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think?
>>>>>
>>>>>