I see the logic in Karan's suggestion. I would also prefer 3.1 beta. Maybe 3.1 beta1 assuming we may have a beta 2 in the works later
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Karan Malhi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was also thinking that 3.1-beta might be an option too. This way we get to > announce twice, once for 3.1-beta and once for 3.1 . We also get to keep the > release in sync with EJB 3.1 . > Just a thought, but I guess I am too late in expressing my opinion , as the > voting already started and most people agree upon EJB 3.1. So, I will give > my +1 to EJB 3.1 too :) . > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> On Jun 23, 2008, at 4:35 PM, David Blevins wrote: >> >>> We might want to start thinking release pretty soon here. >>> >> >> Another topic is weather or not we want to call this 3.0.1 or 3.1. >> >> I was just talking to one of the guys from InfoQ about the upcoming release >> and he definitely liked some of the new features but sort of went cold on >> the idea of a news post wanting to wait till 3.1. Got me thinking that >> maybe 3.0.1 isn't such a wise idea if we really want to get the word out >> there. >> >> If you look at our changes, they're mostly new features and improvements >> with just a few bug fixes. My thoughts previous to talking with him was >> that we should reserve 3.1 for a more EJB 3.1 packed release. But really we >> already have a few great EJB 3.1 features like the embedded testing stuff >> and ejbs in wars. >> >> Maybe the right answer is just to go for the gusto and call it OpenEJB 3.1 >> and get people starting to think of us as EJB 3.1. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -David >> >> > > > -- > Karan Singh Malhi >
