In this case, following the semantic spec is better than doing something random. It just turns out that I've never followed the spec correctly! (definitely not the first time I only half read something). I'll move this release to 2.1.0.
-JZ On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Eric Tschetter <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't see a problem with having a lot of .0 releases. The numbers in > versions are just that: numbers. If we have supefluous .0 attached to our > releases, then people specify an extra 2 letters when they type in the > version. Not the end of the world in my book :). > > But, I don't feel too strongly outside of wanting us to consistently follow > whatever versioning semantics we are following. > > --Eric > > On Wednesday, June 19, 2013, Jordan Zimmerman wrote: > >> I think you're right. I've been using the last digit as a minor change, >> but it's really for patches. I wonder how many patches we'll actually have, >> though. Maybe the patch digit can be done away with altogether and we can >> just use [ma].[mi] versioning. >> >> -JZ >> >> On Jun 19, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Eric Tschetter >> <[email protected]<javascript:;>> >> wrote: >> >>> I have no objections, but would like to clarify the versioning scheme. >> If >>> we are following semantic versioning, then I think those tickets warrant >> a >>> 2.1.0. >>> >>> --Eric >>> >>> On Wednesday, June 19, 2013, Jordan Zimmerman wrote: >>> >>>> Barring any objections, I can start a release on the currently committed >>>> 2.0.2 tickets: >>>> >>>> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12324401 >>>> >>>> -Jordan >>>> >>>> On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Narayanan A R < >>>> [email protected] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Please schedule a release for 2.0.2. I want to use the callback feature >>>>> added to sync() operation. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Nara >>>> >>>> >> >>
