qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Date Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:40 GMT
Robert Godfrey wrote:
> 2009/2/10 Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com>:
>>> Can I ask that either we add a "No Change Just Yet" option to this
>>> vote, or cancel this vote in favour of first establishing that the
>>> majority this that *now* is the correct time to change.
>>> While I can live with a 0.5 release I think that we are doing
>>> ourselves a disservice if we do not wait the one or so extra releases
>>> that would bring us up to interoperability between all the components
>>> and the chance to move to an X.0 release number (X to be determined).
>> Rob,
>> The 'M' is a PAIN to deal with on the C++ side, with the tool chain. Are you
>> ok doing 0.5 now
>> and 1.0 once we have interop over 0-10 with the Java broker?
>> Carl.
> The M is certainly a pain in many ways... And I would dearly love to
> be rid of it.  I just think that there is nothing compelling and new
> that means we should do it now, rather than putting together a plan
> for what an X.0 release would mean, doing that and the rewarding
> ourselves with an X.0 release at the end of the process.
> I could certainly live with an 0.5 scheme, but I do feel that if we
> call a vote we should include all the options people have put forward.
>  I also feel that when we come to numbering an X.0 release the X may
> not be 1.  Almost all the components of Qpid are individually at a
> greater level of maturity than 0.5 would signify.  If we bring
> everything up to the same level and have them interoperate I think we
> can reflect that.

is graduatation not a good enough reason, and that everyone wants to get 
rid of it?

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