Just to close this - based on the related versioning thread, is the community in agreement with the upcoming release as 1.0.0-incubating.M1? Or do we need a formal vote on this?
Thanks, Nitin ________________________________________ From: Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 7:48 PM To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: How are we numbering the first release of Apache Geode? On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > I think it’s confusing to start with 9.0 when the prior releases were a > commercial product, not an open source project. > As a current Gemfire user, my preference would be for Geode 9 - especially if the major version of future Gemfire versions are inline with the major Geode version - I think thats less confusing. For people new to Geode/Gemfire, I doubt they'll give it much thought. Niall > Groovy maintained its versioning pattern when it entered ASF but it has > always been OSS and the prior versions are still available. > > YMMV, > Anthony > > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Greg Chase <g...@gregchase.com> wrote: > > > > Greetings community, > > Whether it was a typo or intended, I've seen some recent discrepancies in > > how we are "numbering" the first release of Apache Geode. > > > > Given that this software has a long commercial heritage that previously > > ended in version 8.x, I could see we might choose to label it "9.0" > given > > the major platform changes that have occurred. > > > > However, I totally understand if its numbered "0.x" or "1.x Alpha" since > > this is its first release as an Apache project. > > > > Personally, I'd like to see a "9.0 Alpha" since this software is some > > serious stuff solving some major problems in its prior ownership model. > > > > -Greg > >
