Makes sense to me. +1 for 3.1.0-SNAPSHOT best, Colin
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Elliott Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > Most projects I have seen that changed their maven artifact org have > continued from the old one (netty et al). > +1 for using 3.1 for our first releases. > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Folks, >> +0 on keeping versioning going >3.1.X or 3.2 >> I'll get more involved as the weeks go on. >> Have a great weekend folks >> Lewis >> >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I think going backwards to 1.0 would be confusing for any existing users. >> > Maybe make the -incubating releases pickup 3.1.x with the intention of >> the >> > first graduated release being 4.0.0. Could be seen as artificially >> > inflating the version numbers, but I don't think that matters too much. I >> > assume (prefer) we'll follow the guidelines of semantic versioning. >> > >> > -n >> > >> > On Friday, December 5, 2014, Colin McCabe <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > I looked at >> > > >> > >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-versioning >> > > and it doesn't say whether we need to start at 1. Hmm. >> > > >> > > I think either way could work. There is stuff from org.htrace up on >> > > Maven central, but since we're moving to org.apache.htrace, we won't >> > > conflict if we choose to go back to 1.0.0. I don't really have any >> > > preference between 1.0.0 or 4.0.0. >> > > >> > > best, >> > > Colin >> > > >> > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Stack <[email protected] >> <javascript:;>> >> > > wrote: >> > > > org.htrace was at 3.0.4 >> > > > >> > > > The next release could be 4.0.0. >> > > > >> > > > Or we could roll back and make it 1.0.0? >> > > > >> > > > Any opinions out there? >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > St.Ack >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> *Lewis* >>
