>From what I can see the source of peoples differing feelings isn't over arbitrary versioning conventions, but rather over the direction and state of the project as a whole. I think everyone actually has a relatively similar notion of what 1.x vs 0.x means, but they're simply applying it to with different priority to different portions of the project.
Further I don't see a pressing reason to change the version numbering scheme at this release. As far as I can tell we are not aiming for this release to bring either major functional changes or levels of maturity that would in itself warrant a change of versioning scheme. My preference would be to leave the existing scheme in place as a reminder to us all that the priority must be to bring more cohesion to the project so that a common versioning scheme makes sense. We should be aiming to release a coherent product which interoperates across all platforms and gives our users a promise of some period of API stability. When we have achieved this then we can (with a fanfare) release as version X.0 where X is yet to be decided. --Rob 2009/2/5 Rajith Attapattu <rajit...@gmail.com>: > [x] 0.5 > > Regards, > > Rajith > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com>wrote: > >> >> let's bring this thread back on topic.... >> straw poll, select one. >> >> [ ] 0.5 >> [ ] 1.5 >> >> Both work, take your pick. many OS projects use pre 1 numbering and others >> use bigger numbers. >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation >> Project: http://qpid.apache.org >> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > > Rajith Attapattu > Red Hat > http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
