On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 19:35 -0600, Jonathan Ellis wrote: >> Way back in Nov 09, we did a users survey and asked what features >> people wanted to see. Here was my summary of the responses: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-user@incubator.apache.org/msg01446.html >> >> Looking at that, we've done essentially all of them. I think we can >> make a strong case that our next release should be 1.0; it's >> production ready, it's reasonably feature-complete, it's documented, >> and we know what our upgrade path story is. > > -0 > > I've said it elsewhere, but the only reason to fuss about a 1.0, is that > it is loaded with special meaning.
Right: that's what we should be doing. Up to and including the start of 0.6 you almost had to have a committer on staff to run Cassandra in production. That's much less true at the end of 0.6 and the start of 0.7. (As Paul says, I think we could have legitimately called 0.7, 1.0, but better late than never.) > I'd rather drop the leading the 0 and continue to number releases > sequentially the way we have. If our < 1 versioning is signaling a lack > of readiness, and if >= 1 is a necessary gate, then 8.0 should work > equally as well. Better in fact, 8 times better! This defeats the purpose of changing the numbering, since by calling it 8.0 you're saying "all those other major releases we did were just as > 1.0 production ready as this one," so you're signaling nothing at all. Which I think was your somewhat cynical point. :) -- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support http://riptano.com
