On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:54:41PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> - Decide on the version number.
>   We had a very small/brief discussion about this during Fosdem.
>   Everybody seems to agree 0.x really doesn't do justice to the maturity
>   we have reached over the years. And it is really hard to define when
>   we hit "1.0". So the proposal is to keep using a "sequence version
>   number". Either just drop the "0." and make the next release-number
>   classpath-21, or adopt a year.month style version number and make the
>   next version number classpath-6.3 for the March 2006 release.
>   In either case we will just use a code name for a release that has
>   some special feature set that we are proud of, but we will always
>   just increase the release snapshot number. Suggestions or Opinions?

I don't really like this approach. I think we should just do a 1.0
release when work for all applications written for Java 1.4. We will
have regressions against Java 1.4 but these can be fixed in 1.1, 1.2
... Or if you want a slower version inflation 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ...

Using a year-based approach means nothing. Then we can use evil
codenames like "wealthy walrus".


Cheers,
Michael
-- 
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/

Reply via email to