Bit of a pickle :)
My gut reaction is your second suggestion, it seems like the best
compromise. The version associated with Mustang GA is arbitrary, to
some degree, so whether it's 2.0.3 or 2.0.3.1, does it really matter?
People on Java 5 aren't likely to want to download the exact version
that matches Mustang, they'll just want the latest and greatest.
Even if 2.0.3 is release silently, as you say, it'll likely cause some
considerable confusion to someone somewhere, so that seems like trouble.
Either way, it's a shame to have the release cycle tied to the Mustang
horse (ahem).
Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
> Kenny MacLeod wrote:
>> I know that RI 2.1 is just around the corner, but is there any chance
>> of 2.0.3 making an appearance to tide us over? There's an issue fixed
>> against 2.0.3 that I'd quite like to get my grubby paws on (#182) that
>> was originally going to be fixed in 2.0.2, and I'd like to get it
>> before 2.1 is finalised.
>
> I wanted to release 2.0.3 by using the same bits as in Mustang GA, so
> that Mustang users can cross check bug list with JAXB issue tracker.
>
> I could have release 2.0.3 with the head of 2.0.x now and give 2.0.4 to
> the mustang version, but then it will be somewhat strange, as you end up
> 2.0.3 more mature than 2.0.4 (the bits in Mustang is essentially frozen
> right now --- except unless we discover last minute show-stoppers.)
>
> According to the initial schedule, Mustang would have shipped by now,
> but it's delayed a bit. I realize that we haven't been delivering
> up-to-date 2.0.x stack for a while now, and that is not good.
>
>
> I have two ideas. I appreciate your suggestion:
>
> 1. release 2.0.4 with the head of 2.0.x soon, and later when Mustang
> ships release 2.0.3 silently.
>
> 2. Release 2.0.3 now, by using the bits that are in Mustang today, by
> assuming that we won't have any problems in Mustang. Then immediately
> release 2.0.4, which contains all the latest 2.0 fixes. If it turns out
> that there are indeed show-stoppers in Mustang, well, we'll think about
> some creative versioning scheme, like 2.0.3.1 or whatever.
>
>