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 Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:13:46 GMT
2009/2/10 Robert Godfrey <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com>:

> I *really* don't want to label Qpid as v0.x because I think that
> undermines the maturity that is present in the current product (you
> may even know some people releasing commercial product off the back of
> it ;-) )... However if you force me to vote now on a non M scheme I
> would have to vote for 0.x.  That would also imply that the next major
> release would be 1.0.  I actually think that when the time comes to
> move to a full X.0 release we should start at something like v3.0
> since there are at least two earlier stable baselines that people may
> be currently using.

This is a general comment on replies in various threads on this topic;
I think that we should recognise that 1.0 isn't in many people's eyes
an indication of superb quality or maturity - in fact I know some
people who won't touch anything that does not have at least 3.0. So I
don't think we should be too idealistic in what we want to see before
moving to an X.0 scheme.

I can certainly see the importance of having interop between our
components (clearly) but I am still not entirely convinced it directly
influences the numbering. From our users' perspective it matters not
one jot whether we call the next release M5 or 1.5 - the interop is
still the same.

If we decide to keep the existing scheme or go for 0.x, do we have
people able to work on 0-10 protocol support for the Java broker?
Would that decision change our scope for the next release so that work
on 0-10 support for the Java broker would commence sooner?

RG

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


Mime
View raw message