On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:36:37PM +0000, Chris Burdess wrote: > >Changes in version number format, etc. have a cost in that can > >confuse (or at least complicate) packaging and versioning software > >like RPM, FreeBSD ports, etc. not to mention consumers (i.e., users). > > > >If all we want is a sequence numbering, then 0.xx has been working > >fine so why change it? > > > >If we want to be prouder, let's just release 1.0 and be done with it. > >Surely 1.0.1, 1.1, 1.2, etc will shortly follow and the whole > >grandness > >of "1.0" will fade quickly. > > > >So I vote either keeping the status quo, or releasing 1.0. > >A "classpath-6.3" seems to be the worst of both worlds. > > I agree with the above but my preference would be for "1.4.x". We are > at about 99% of 1.4 API coverage, and we have many features that > weren't shipped by Sun until 1.5. When we are in the same situation > with respect to 1.5, we should call ourselves 1.5.x and so forth. > This makes the situation much more clear to casual users as to what > they can expect in terms of features.
Full ACK. This really makes sense. 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/
