[jdom-interest] Why are version numbers so complicated?
jdom at tuis.net
Mon Mar 19 03:48:27 PDT 2012
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
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
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
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)
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.
More information about the jdom-interest