Tagging Daemon 1.1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Tagging Daemon 1.1

Mark Thomas
I have finished working through the Commons Daemon open issues and I am
ready to tag and call the release vote. I wanted to give folks a heads
up and an opportunity scratch any Daemon related itches before I tag.
Unless there are objections, I plan to tag in ~24 hours.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tagging Daemon 1.1

garydgregory
How about calling it 1.1.0?

Gary

On Nov 2, 2017 07:33, "Mark Thomas" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have finished working through the Commons Daemon open issues and I am
> ready to tag and call the release vote. I wanted to give folks a heads
> up and an opportunity scratch any Daemon related itches before I tag.
> Unless there are objections, I plan to tag in ~24 hours.
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tagging Daemon 1.1

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hi Gary,

> Am 02.11.2017 um 15:28 schrieb Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>:
>
> How about calling it 1.1.0?

See Emmanuels answer on the other thread. Why would we do that? :-)

Regards,
Benedikt

>
> Gary
>
> On Nov 2, 2017 07:33, "Mark Thomas" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I have finished working through the Commons Daemon open issues and I am
>> ready to tag and call the release vote. I wanted to give folks a heads
>> up and an opportunity scratch any Daemon related itches before I tag.
>> Unless there are objections, I plan to tag in ~24 hours.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tagging Daemon 1.1

Mark Thomas
In reply to this post by garydgregory
On 02/11/17 14:28, Gary Gregory wrote:
> How about calling it 1.1.0?

That would be my preference.

I only went with 1.1 as that was the convention with other components.
That isn't a convention I agree with but neither is it very high up my
list of things I'm particularly bothered about.

I'm happy to go with the majority preference (mine being for 1.1.0).

Mark


>
> Gary
>
> On Nov 2, 2017 07:33, "Mark Thomas" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I have finished working through the Commons Daemon open issues and I am
>> ready to tag and call the release vote. I wanted to give folks a heads
>> up and an opportunity scratch any Daemon related itches before I tag.
>> Unless there are objections, I plan to tag in ~24 hours.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tagging Daemon 1.1

garydgregory
In reply to this post by Benedikt Ritter-4
This could be an argument that goes the way of source code formatting ;-)
but my simplest reasons are:
- It all lines up nicely all the time
- It hints that we intend to supply bug fix releases

Gary

On Nov 2, 2017 08:32, "Benedikt Ritter" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Gary,
>
> > Am 02.11.2017 um 15:28 schrieb Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > How about calling it 1.1.0?
>
> See Emmanuels answer on the other thread. Why would we do that? :-)
>
> Regards,
> Benedikt
>
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Nov 2, 2017 07:33, "Mark Thomas" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> I have finished working through the Commons Daemon open issues and I am
> >> ready to tag and call the release vote. I wanted to give folks a heads
> >> up and an opportunity scratch any Daemon related itches before I tag.
> >> Unless there are objections, I plan to tag in ~24 hours.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tagging Daemon 1.1

Mark Thomas
In reply to this post by Mark Thomas
On 02/11/17 13:33, Mark Thomas wrote:
> I have finished working through the Commons Daemon open issues and I am
> ready to tag and call the release vote. I wanted to give folks a heads
> up and an opportunity scratch any Daemon related itches before I tag.
> Unless there are objections, I plan to tag in ~24 hours.

Just a heads up that this might get pushed back a bit. I'm looking at
some Tomcat integration issues and there might be a need for some more
Java 9 related changes.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tagging Daemon 1.1

Emmanuel Bourg-3
In reply to this post by Mark Thomas
On 11/02/2017 03:42 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:

> I'm happy to go with the majority preference (mine being for 1.1.0).

I'm more concerned about consistency between releases than the actual
version format. commons-daemon has always used 3 digits, so 1.1.0 is
fine. But releasing lang 3.7.0 after 3.6 would look odd.

Emmanuel Bourg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]