Kenny MacLeod wrote:
> 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?
No, it doesn't really matter. I'd have liked to have xjc in Mustang
print "2.0.3" with the --version option, but it just prints out 2.0 now
and they don't let us fix that at this late in the game.
> 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.
I don't think I really expect people to download the Mustang version.
The primary motivation is that when I say the bug is fixed in version X,
I want people to understand whether that fix is available in a
particular version of Mustang or not.
> 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.
Between other delivery vehicles, Mustang update releases, and so on,
1.3.0.1 kind of versions might be inevitable anyway.
Let me talk internally some more. And if anyone else has some thoughts
to add, those are always welcome.
In any case, expect a 2.0.x release soon...
> Either way, it's a shame to have the release cycle tied to the Mustang
> horse (ahem).
I understand that versioning scheme is always a painful issue everywhere.
--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi
Sun Microsystems kohsuke.kawaguchi_at_sun.com