Michael Koch wrote:
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
Suggest making next release 0.90 and incrementing towards 1.0. The 1.0
release should be 1.4.0 (or 1.40 if you were going to be consistent, but
I digress). Anyway my $0.02.
Brian
