On 10 November 2015 at 15:23, Ken Giusti <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks, > > I'm calling a formal vote on the recent discussion about qpid-cpp versioning: > > http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Can-the-next-release-of-the-C-broker-and-tools-be-1-0-0-td7633329.html > > [ ] Yes - Adopt semantic versioning for qpid-cpp after its components have > been moved to their own source tree. The first release using semantic > versioning will have the initial version number of 1.(N+1).0, where N comes > from the last stable release of qpid-cpp using the 0.N version format. > > [ ] No - continue with the current 0.N version format. > > -- > -K >
[ +1 ] Yes - Adopt semantic versioning for qpid-cpp after its components have been moved to their own source tree. The first release using semantic versioning will have the initial version number of 1.(N+1).0, where N comes from the last stable release of qpid-cpp using the 0.N version format. However for me the first thing to decide is probably who will do the source tree reorg, and when, since we have really been at this point before and it didnt go anywhere in the end for these bits. It needs folks familiar with the bits in question to help do the move and ensure it goes smoothly, otherwise they could end up in their nice new tree (/repo eventually?) in a not-so-functional state. Robbie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
