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: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)
Date Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:56:14 GMT
2009/2/9 Aidan Skinner <aidan@apache.org>:

>> 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).
>
> I think that's a separate issue. We do need to talk about our release
> process a bit more, but that's probably best done in another thread.
> Possibly this one: http://markmail.org/message/5bxobdc23rgbmqu7

Well, people seem to have a view that we need to have certain features
(APIs, protocol compatibility) to be able to have an X.0 release so I
think it is directly related.

I don't think it's related to our release process though?

>> 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
>
> They're not. I'm not sure where that idea originated, but it's never
> been a requirement for podlings to release Mx numbered artifacts. I
> think the "all podling release have to be M.x releases" fallacy is an
> instance of the monkey/hose/banana problem[1].

Interesting, I wonder how we ended up with such a poor numbering
scheme in the first place. Anyway, that is a historical detail now I
suppose.

RG

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


Mime
View raw message