Re: Why are version numbers so complicated?

I think that is the close to the way it will happen... although I intend 
to go with a 3-digit version.

Also, I am curious about why you suggest 2.1 instead of 2.0 (or in my 
3-digit thinking would it be 2.0.1 or 2.1.0?). The way you qualify it as 
being 'version 2.1 for the first production version' seems to imply that 
you expect 2.0 or something for the first non-production version.

I believe that the very first '2' release will be fully 
production-ready. The 'Easter' release date is for the 'final' and 
'stable' release.

I have been convinced that the release will be just 'JDOM', and not 
'JDOM2' and that the version number will reflect the difference. In 
essence, as you say, JDOM remains the same product as before, just a new 
version.

In my (current) way of 'sorting' out the version numbers, the three 
digits boil down to: a.b.c where 'a' is the 'API version', 'b' is the 
'feature' version, and 'c' is the 'patch' version.

The major change to the API from JDOM 1.x.x to 2.x.x is reflected in the 
version number.

If any new features are added (in an API sable way) then the 'feature' 
version could be updated to 2.1.x, and any bug fixes to a particular 
feature version will be reflected in the final digit.

I do believe there will be some additional feature entry in to JDOM in 
the next year or so, so I expect there to be a 2.1.0 at some point (I am 
thinking XPath 2.0 support at a minimum), so while there may be some 
more 'regular' updates to JDOM, it does not imply that 2.0.0 is not 
production ready ... ;-)

So, I think, for the most part, you will find that the releases are 
similar to what you are suggesting (but a 3 digit version, and a the 
'production ready' version will be at 2.0.0 not 2.1.0)

Rolf

On 19/03/2012 6:23 AM, Brenner, Mike wrote:
> I did not do all the work you did on it, so I don't think of jdom version 2 as a "different product called jdom2".
>
> (BTW, the dual numbering of Java itself has always confused me -- is it java 1.7 or java 7 or java2 version 7 or java 2.7?)
>
> My vote would go to JDOM version 2.1 for the first production version of the Rolf Lear work,
> but I can't say that I would really care if you choose some other naming convention.
>
_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/[email protected]