qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Greig <robert.j.gr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: version number proposal
Date Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:41:36 GMT
2009/2/3 Rafael Schloming <rafaels@redhat.com>:

>> I could buy into s/M/0./ for everything (but not s/M/1./). I know some
>> people are opposed to releasing 0.x versions for marketing reasons,
>> but that essentially removes any useful information from the rev.
>
> I agree, and personally I don't think marketing should enter into the
> version number discussion. I think once you let marketing in, you've removed
> all hope for sane and useful version numbers. ;)

I don't think the 1.x argument is about marketing, really. It's about
conveying information that reflects accepted understanding of the
meaning contained in the number. A 0.x release implies to many people
a low level of maturity and stability. Certainly looking at the Java
broker and client, only because I a most familiar with those, I know
that they have many production installations today delivering
business-critical messages. By labelling that 0.x I think it is
painting a false impression of the maturity of the software - which is
now several years old. Are we really saying that after three years
qpid isn't even 1.x?

I do also agree that 1.x implies a certain level of API compatibility
- but I can smugly say that I have consistently argued on this forum
that building an API that is closely tied to AMQP is insane. Maybe
this implies that for the next release the non-Java languages need to
focus on the API design. Or we should be comfortable moving to 2.x
relatively quickly as the API evolves.

RG

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message