Understand that we may not want people to infer too much from 1.0 especially since we likely need to address formalizing the versions/signatures of our APIs as well as SPIs.
I would suggest what I often do in this case and use a nearer to 1.0 version such as 0.9.0 which is perhaps a compromise (note you can bump the 'x' in 0.x.0 any number of times you wish) and indicates we are "close" to a 1.0. Can we go with 0.9.0? -mr From: Rob Allen <r...@akrabat.com> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 06/20/2018 09:46 AM Subject: Re: [Release] Preparing the release of OpenWhisk > On 20 Jun 2018, at 15:29, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:28 PM Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ...I'd rather start with < 1.0 also and work up to a 1.0 release... > > Big +1 to that, especially as initial releases may fail due to formal > aspects, unrelated to their technical quality. FWiW, I'm also in the <1.0 camp. 1.0 is a commitment to backwards compatibility. I'm not sure that promise can be made quite yet. Regards, Rob
