qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: version number proposal
Date Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:56:30 GMT
Robert Greig wrote:
> 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.

based on the threads

Shall I make my proposal again...  v1.5 for the next release? or shall I 
create a vote with 1.5 & 0.5
and people can only vote for one of them


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message