From: Leo S. <leo...@df...> - 2008-10-10 13:01:15
|
We are preparing a new release. what name do we have for this release? according to http://aperture.wiki.sourceforge.net/VersionNumbers I suggested to use Music Genres for the next releases, alpha and beta are lame names. we are out of beta now. The first name in the list given there would be "punk". an early precursor of punk would also be nice, something like "bluegrass" or "jazz". so its something like 1.2.0.punk (we need to change the second number because we added new interfaces, but we didn't change existing interfaces, so only the second number is increased) Antoni, you pick. best Leo -- ____________________________________________________ DI Leo Sauermann http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH Trippstadter Strasse 122 P.O. Box 2080 Fon: +49 631 20575-116 D-67663 Kaiserslautern Fax: +49 631 20575-102 Germany Mail: leo...@df... Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter Olthoff Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 ____________________________________________________ |
From: Christiaan F. <chr...@ad...> - 2008-10-10 13:16:01
|
Leo Sauermann wrote: > We are preparing a new release. > > what name do we have for this release? > > according to http://aperture.wiki.sourceforge.net/VersionNumbers I > suggested to use Music Genres for the next releases, alpha and beta are > lame names. > we are out of beta now. > > The first name in the list given there would be "punk". an early > precursor of punk would also be nice, something like "bluegrass" or "jazz". > > so its something like > 1.2.0.punk I am not happy with sticking such names to it, I think it will only confuse people. Especially because you also write it as part of the version number. What do others think? Regards, Chris -- |
From: Herko t. H. <her...@ad...> - 2008-10-10 13:37:07
|
>> so its something like >> 1.2.0.punk > > I am not happy with sticking such names to it, I think it will only > confuse people. Especially because you also write it as part of the > version number. What do others think? I agree with Chris: I don't see the added value of nicknames for a library such as this. Adding such a name to the version number is very uncommon as well. Cheers, Herko |
From: Antoni M. <ant...@gm...> - 2008-10-13 09:49:03
|
Christiaan Fluit pisze: > Leo Sauermann wrote: >> We are preparing a new release. >> >> what name do we have for this release? >> >> according to http://aperture.wiki.sourceforge.net/VersionNumbers I >> suggested to use Music Genres for the next releases, alpha and beta are >> lame names. >> we are out of beta now. >> >> The first name in the list given there would be "punk". an early >> precursor of punk would also be nice, something like "bluegrass" or "jazz". >> >> so its something like >> 1.2.0.punk > > I am not happy with sticking such names to it, I think it will only > confuse people. Especially because you also write it as part of the > version number. What do others think? I'd concur with Chris. This would be cool if we aimed at a non-technical audience (like amarok, ubuntu, mac os etc.). To the technically-minded - like software developers - having this string as part of the version is not that necessary. I liked the .beta suffix as an indicator of the status of the code, something like the .incubating suffix used by the Apache or Eclipse. Everyone knows what .incubating on an apache project means. Also everyone knows what is Ubuntu Jaunty Jackalope, or Amarok Nujalik - they are cool. I don't think we can persuade the world that a java library, without any juicy screenshots and rounded corners can be cool too. :) Antoni Mylka ant...@gm... |
From: Leo S. <leo...@df...> - 2008-10-13 12:46:53
|
ok, so no "cool name", Herko is also against it. but can we remove the "beta"? its not beta anymore, in my eyes best Leo It was Antoni Myłka who said at the right time 13.10.2008 11:11 the following words: > Christiaan Fluit pisze: > >> Leo Sauermann wrote: >> >>> We are preparing a new release. >>> >>> what name do we have for this release? >>> >>> according to http://aperture.wiki.sourceforge.net/VersionNumbers I >>> suggested to use Music Genres for the next releases, alpha and beta are >>> lame names. >>> we are out of beta now. >>> >>> The first name in the list given there would be "punk". an early >>> precursor of punk would also be nice, something like "bluegrass" or "jazz". >>> >>> so its something like >>> 1.2.0.punk >>> >> I am not happy with sticking such names to it, I think it will only >> confuse people. Especially because you also write it as part of the >> version number. What do others think? >> > > I'd concur with Chris. This would be cool if we aimed at a non-technical > audience (like amarok, ubuntu, mac os etc.). To the technically-minded - > like software developers - having this string as part of the version is > not that necessary. > > I liked the .beta suffix as an indicator of the status of the code, > something like the .incubating suffix used by the Apache or Eclipse. > Everyone knows what .incubating on an apache project means. Also > everyone knows what is Ubuntu Jaunty Jackalope, or Amarok Nujalik - they > are cool. I don't think we can persuade the world that a java library, > without any juicy screenshots and rounded corners can be cool too. :) > > Antoni Mylka > ant...@gm... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Aperture-devel mailing list > Ape...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aperture-devel > -- ____________________________________________________ DI Leo Sauermann http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH Trippstadter Strasse 122 P.O. Box 2080 Fon: +49 631 20575-116 D-67663 Kaiserslautern Fax: +49 631 20575-102 Germany Mail: leo...@df... Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter Olthoff Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 ____________________________________________________ |
From: Christiaan F. <chr...@ad...> - 2008-10-13 12:53:52
|
Leo Sauermann wrote: > ok, > so no "cool name", Herko is also against it. > > but can we remove the "beta"? > > its not beta anymore, in my eyes I agree. Chris -- |
From: Herko t. H. <her...@ad...> - 2008-10-13 13:38:38
|
> but can we remove the "beta"? > > its not beta anymore, in my eyes Somewhat agreed. AFAIK, the subcrawler functionality hasn't been officially been part of a release yet, so it could be considered "beta". Or are we satisfied it is stable? I haven't been involved in version numbering for Aperture in the past, so I don't know what the reasoning behind the version numbering has been. In general, I don't think we've followed the http://aperture.wiki.sourceforge.net/VersionNumbers page, or at least not in a way I would have expected. In general I would expect version numbers to develop like this: Phase 0. New idea, "internal" development starts ---------------------------------------------- 0.1 proof of concept 0.2 improving the idea ... 0.5 halfway there... ... 0.9 almost there! Phase 1: Getting ready for first public release ----------------------------------------------- 1.0-alpha<n>: first release(s) to the community, "request for comments" 1.0-beta<n>: this is what we think it should look like, please test [1.0-rc<n>: barring critical bugs, this is what the 1.0 release will be] 1.0: first public release 1.0.1: first bugfix release Phase 1.1: Adding new functionality/API --------------------------------------- 1.1-alpha: discussing the new functionality/API with the community 1.0.2: fixing things needed for new functionality 1.1-beta: new functionality/API has been added, please test 1.1: new functionality/API released 1.1.1: first bugfix release 1.0.3: backport of bugfixes to previous release Phase 2.0: Major redesign ------------------------- 2.0-alpha<n>: discussing the redesign/architecture changes 1.1.2: looking at design leads to discovery of bugs 2.0-beta<n>: this is what we think it should look like, please test [2.0-rc<n>: barring critical bugs, this is what the 2.0 release will be] 2.0: Oh yeah! This is much better :) Etc, etc ;) Cheers, Herko |
From: Leo S. <leo...@df...> - 2008-10-14 09:27:03
|
It was Herko ter Horst who said at the right time 13.10.2008 15:38 the following words: >> but can we remove the "beta"? >> >> its not beta anymore, in my eyes >> > > Somewhat agreed. AFAIK, the subcrawler functionality hasn't been > officially been part of a release yet, so it could be considered "beta". > Or are we satisfied it is stable? > > I haven't been involved in version numbering for Aperture in the past, > so I don't know what the reasoning behind the version numbering has > been. In general, I don't think we've followed the > http://aperture.wiki.sourceforge.net/VersionNumbers page, or at least > not in a way I would have expected. > we have stuck to that scheme already and will go on with it, it was only the "names" that are undecided best Leo > In general I would expect version numbers to develop like this: > > Phase 0. New idea, "internal" development starts > ---------------------------------------------- > 0.1 proof of concept > 0.2 improving the idea > ... > 0.5 halfway there... > ... > 0.9 almost there! > > Phase 1: Getting ready for first public release > ----------------------------------------------- > 1.0-alpha<n>: first release(s) to the community, "request for comments" > 1.0-beta<n>: this is what we think it should look like, please test > [1.0-rc<n>: barring critical bugs, this is what the 1.0 release will be] > 1.0: first public release > 1.0.1: first bugfix release > > Phase 1.1: Adding new functionality/API > --------------------------------------- > 1.1-alpha: discussing the new functionality/API with the community > 1.0.2: fixing things needed for new functionality > 1.1-beta: new functionality/API has been added, please test > 1.1: new functionality/API released > 1.1.1: first bugfix release > 1.0.3: backport of bugfixes to previous release > > Phase 2.0: Major redesign > ------------------------- > 2.0-alpha<n>: discussing the redesign/architecture changes > 1.1.2: looking at design leads to discovery of bugs > 2.0-beta<n>: this is what we think it should look like, please test > [2.0-rc<n>: barring critical bugs, this is what the 2.0 release will be] > 2.0: Oh yeah! This is much better :) > > Etc, etc ;) > > Cheers, > > Herko > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Aperture-devel mailing list > Ape...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aperture-devel > -- ____________________________________________________ DI Leo Sauermann http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH Trippstadter Strasse 122 P.O. Box 2080 Fon: +49 631 20575-116 D-67663 Kaiserslautern Fax: +49 631 20575-102 Germany Mail: leo...@df... Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter Olthoff Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 ____________________________________________________ |
From: Antoni M. <ant...@gm...> - 2008-10-14 10:35:31
|
2008/10/14 Leo Sauermann <leo...@df...>: > It was Herko ter Horst who said at the right time 13.10.2008 15:38 the > following words: > > but can we remove the "beta"? > > its not beta anymore, in my eyes > > > Somewhat agreed. AFAIK, the subcrawler functionality hasn't been > officially been part of a release yet, so it could be considered "beta". > Or are we satisfied it is stable? > > I haven't been involved in version numbering for Aperture in the past, > so I don't know what the reasoning behind the version numbering has > been. In general, I don't think we've followed the > http://aperture.wiki.sourceforge.net/VersionNumbers page, or at least > not in a way I would have expected. > > > we have stuck to that scheme already and will go on with it, > > it was only the "names" that are undecided > > best > Leo > I don't see any contradiction. The scheme on the wiki page is from apache, it's simple (bugfix - minor number, backward compatible new features - middle number, backward incompatible redesign - major number). We haven't had any "testing" releases yet. Everything was beta. Now that we're out of beta we'll need to think about branding releases we consider "unstable" - when/if we (ever :) decide to release them. The Aduna process (alphas,betas,rcs) was good for sesame since much work was being done, and the api itself is very low-level so it's important to ensure proper stability. For us it may be overkill. But as I said, the problem is non-existent at the moment. We'll return to it when we think seriously about aperture 2.0. -- Antoni Myłka ant...@gm... |