2009/2/9 Aidan Skinner <[email protected]>: >> I think it would be good to have a discussion - hopefully leading to >> consensus (!) - on what people think we need to have achieved to merit >> a 1.x release. To my mind, if people agree those items and they are >> different from what is in scope in our next release, that implies we >> don't have the correct focus for our next release(s). > > I think that's a separate issue. We do need to talk about our release > process a bit more, but that's probably best done in another thread. > Possibly this one: http://markmail.org/message/5bxobdc23rgbmqu7
Well, people seem to have a view that we need to have certain features (APIs, protocol compatibility) to be able to have an X.0 release so I think it is directly related. I don't think it's related to our release process though? >> My own view is that Mx is a weak numbering scheme - something I have >> always felt and I have no idea why incubator projects have to be >> numbered (or should I say encumbered) in such a way. I am not sure > > They're not. I'm not sure where that idea originated, but it's never > been a requirement for podlings to release Mx numbered artifacts. I > think the "all podling release have to be M.x releases" fallacy is an > instance of the monkey/hose/banana problem[1]. Interesting, I wonder how we ended up with such a poor numbering scheme in the first place. Anyway, that is a historical detail now I suppose. RG --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
