Am Montag, den 27.02.2006, 12:23 -0500 schrieb Stuart Ballard: > On 2/27/06, Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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? >
> The numbering game is all about psychology really anyway; version 0.21 > suggests "21% of the way to maturity". If we stuck a 9 in there and > made the next version either 0.9.21 or 0.9.1, it'd give a much more > accurate representation of the real level of maturity without needing > to go to a more unconventional system. If anything, I would vote for this approach. 0.9.1 really sounds logical wrt the current rate of maturity and an 1.0 really seems not that far away. So this would be the 1st snapshot in the maybe-soon-1.0 cycle of snapshots. Ah yes, codenames would also be nice, I really like such kind of things, just for the fun of it. /Roman
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
