+1 to what Jesse and Amit said. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Amit Sela <amitsel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think 1.0.0 for a couple of reasons: > > * It makes sense coming after 0.X (+1 Jesse). > * It is the FIRST stable release as a project, regardless of its roots. > * while the SDK is definitely a 2.0.0, Beam is not made only of the SDK, > and I hope we'll have more milage with users running all sorts of runners > in production before our 2.0.0 release. > > Amit. > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:25 PM Jesse Anderson <je...@smokinghand.com> > wrote: > > I think 1.0 makes the most sense. > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 10:57 AM Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote: > > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable > release" > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something else, to > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based decision > on > > this matter. > > > > I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate designation for > > our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A > reasonable > > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others. > > > > 1.0.0: > > * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y. > > * Most people would expect it, I suppose. > > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs carrying the > > same number. > > > > 2.0.0: > > * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken -- continuing their > > version numbering scheme from their previous origin. > > * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity. > > * May be unexpected to some users. > > > > I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences -- names are > > important and well correlated with success. Thanks! > > > > Davor > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c35067071aec9029d9100ae973c629 > > 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E > > >
