2009/2/10 Robert Godfrey <[email protected]>: > I *really* don't want to label Qpid as v0.x because I think that > undermines the maturity that is present in the current product (you > may even know some people releasing commercial product off the back of > it ;-) )... However if you force me to vote now on a non M scheme I > would have to vote for 0.x. That would also imply that the next major > release would be 1.0. I actually think that when the time comes to > move to a full X.0 release we should start at something like v3.0 > since there are at least two earlier stable baselines that people may > be currently using.
This is a general comment on replies in various threads on this topic; I think that we should recognise that 1.0 isn't in many people's eyes an indication of superb quality or maturity - in fact I know some people who won't touch anything that does not have at least 3.0. So I don't think we should be too idealistic in what we want to see before moving to an X.0 scheme. I can certainly see the importance of having interop between our components (clearly) but I am still not entirely convinced it directly influences the numbering. From our users' perspective it matters not one jot whether we call the next release M5 or 1.5 - the interop is still the same. If we decide to keep the existing scheme or go for 0.x, do we have people able to work on 0-10 protocol support for the Java broker? Would that decision change our scope for the next release so that work on 0-10 support for the Java broker would commence sooner? RG --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
