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: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Date Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:56:23 GMT
2009/2/9 Robert Godfrey <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com>:

> I'd rather stay on M5 and work towards a release which can be > 1.0

I think it would be good to have a discussion - hopefully leading to
consensus (!) - on what people think we need to have achieved to merit
a 1.x release. To my mind, if people agree those items and they are
different from what is in scope in our next release, that implies we
don't have the correct focus for our next release(s).

> Why wasn't this offered as an option - I know at least one other
> person wanted that on the list?

I think the status quo should be offered as an option. If I understand
correctly, people wanting the status quo are not arguing that it is
the ideal version numbering scheme, but that there are issues that
prevent us moving to a more sensible scheme at the moment?

My own view is that Mx is a weak numbering scheme - something I have
always felt and I have no idea why incubator projects have to be
numbered (or should I say encumbered) in such a way. I am not sure
what "milestone" means in that context - is a milestone not a stage on
the way to a clearly defined goal? Irrespective of which features or
project changes we need to have in future releases, moving to a very
boring, standard release numbering convention would be a welcome move
for our (potential) users.

I also seem to recall that some people brought up the point a while
ago that certain unix package systems (e.g. rpm) only work with an
x.y.z release numbering scheme, so we already have some use of an
alternative scheme (or am I mistaken)?


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

View raw message