Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming

[Martin Langhoff]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Jim Gettys <jg at laptop.org> wrote:
>  We have network protocols in the presence service we depend on, and
>  which fundamentally affect interoperability between applications ("flag
>  days").  I also posit we're very likely to have to face at least one
>  more flag day before we reach long term stability in these protocols.

Good point. When we know we have such incompatibilities, with the
major.minor.bugfix scheme we can say:

 "XOOS-1.1.0 onwards is not compatible with XSOS-0.5.x or earlier -
you need at least XSOS-0.6.0" and people will be able to interpret
that quite well. They will also be able to tell that they can go
XOOS-1.9.x as far as that little x goes without breaking compat.

Once we've reached 1.0.0 on both projects (the dates should hopefully
converge ;-) ), we are making an implicit promise that we won't have a
major flag day in the medium term -- so I don't think we should call
today's XO build anything close to 1.0.0.

The 1.0.0 should be the release we stay backwards compatible with for
a long time, and we should pile up flag-days and unleash them unto the
world the day we hop to 2.0.0. (I suspect this will be hard and
impossible to do 100%)

cheers,



martin
-- 
 martin.langhoff at gmail.com
 martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff