Re: [Springframework-developer] Current release plan - why delay package renaming?

[<tri...@tr...>]

Rod & all,

> I've been thinking it over last night and I can see major marketing
> advantages in a 1.0 name. (For TSS article etc.)
> 
> So I'm inclined to agree with Trevors suggestion as to Eclipse-stype
> "milestones".
> 
> 1.0M1 sounds good.
> 

I like Trevor's suggestion as well.  Also makes sense since we are changing the
package names.  1.0M1 is more of a distinction from 0.9 than 0.9.1 would be.

I can see the following:

1.0M1 is what we have today plus package name changes
1.0M2/1.0M3/... would include some new features as we see fit
After a feature freeze is agreed upon, we can quickly release 1.0RC1 to be
followed by 1.0RC2 with only bug fixes. 
Then we can release 1.0

1.0.1 would be bug fixes for 1.0

1.1M1... 1.1RC1 ... 1.1 would be the next version to include new features
1.2M1 ...  the next one and so on until we introduce some major changes that
might not be completely backwards compatible.  At that point we move to 2.0M1
with a new source module "spring2".  We can still maintain "spring1" and create
bug fix releases if necessary.

Once we introduce the new source module, is it feasible to rename the "main" CVS
module to maybe "i21beta" or something like it, to make it clear that it is not
the main source tree.

Thomas