On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:19 PM Nick Couchman <vn...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 19:10 Mike Jumper <mjum...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 6:50 AM Nick Couchman <vn...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Very cool. Was 524 the only change that would push us to a major > version > > > (2.0.0)? I can't remember off the top of my head if anything else > > > introduced API-relevant changes. > > > > > > > Yep. Other than the changes to Connectable, no other changes break > > extension compatibility with 1.0.0. > > > Very nice. So shall we try for a 1.1.0 release, next (soon)? Maybe squash > a few more bugs that have surfaced from 1.0.0? > Sounds good to me. > And do we want to continue this versioning scheme, or continue to toss > around some of the other ideas we've talked about? > I think the new versioning scheme still seems sensible, but following 1.1.0 I suggest we consider whether we should adopt a branching scheme like you mentioned before. It would be nice to rely on being able to always produce bugfix/minor releases without breaking compatibility. Our issues with producing a release following 1.0.0 are more with the current existence of an incompatible change on master (and the upgrade headache that implies for any users affected by bugs in 1.0.0), not with the numbering. - Mike
