As someone who has been using Apache Royale *daily in production for many years*, I’ll be honest: at this point, the version number has become largely irrelevant to me.
Royale has been stable and reliable for a long time. It crossed the “production-ready” threshold years ago. Waiting for some notion of perfection before calling it 1.0 doesn’t really change how existing users perceive or use the project anymore. A 1.0 release *would have mattered* if it had marked the transition from experimental to production. Today, that transition is already long past. For current users, stability, predictability, and continued maintenance matter far more than a symbolic version label. If declaring 1.0 helps attract new contributors or gives the project renewed visibility, that’s a valid reason to do it. But from a real-world usage perspective, Royale has already proven itself. The software maturity is there — regardless of the number attached to the release. Josh Tynjala <[email protected]> escreveu (sexta, 30/01/2026 à(s) 20:41): > I'm okay calling it 1.0. We don't need things to be perfect, and I think > we're at a point of calling it stable enough. > > I'm happy with the state of royale-compiler, and its level of compatibility > with other AS3 compilers. Work on royale-asjs has slowed down recently. It > seems like big changes aren't likely to be coming any time soon (unless we > get some fresh blood, which a 1.0 might help with). > > If someone wants to declare some specific goals that they feel are > necessary for 1.0, that's cool. Otherwise, maybe it's time to rip off the > bandage and just say 1.0. > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC > https://bowlerhat.dev/ > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 11:37 AM Andrew Wetmore <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Is this the point where we decide whether this release is v.1.0.0? > > > > > > Andrew Wetmore > > Assistant VP, Marketing and Publicity, The ASF <https://apache.org> > > Editor-Writer, Infra team, The ASF > > > > Editor, moosehousepress.com > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 6:22 PM Josh Tynjala <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I would argue that the compiler alone includes more than enough > > > improvements to justify a new release. I just updated the compiler > > release > > > notes, and there's a ton of good stuff in there. New AS3 language > > features, > > > including arrow functions and function type expressions. New compiler > > > options and metadata for including JS, CSS, and assets. Restoring the > > > ability to embed fonts in SWF. Support for more modern CSS syntax. And > > > many, many bug fixes! > > > > > > I'm with Harbs, though, in that I'd like him to test the new function > > type > > > expressions a bit more first, just to rule out any major issues that I > > > might have missed. > > > > > > -- > > > Josh Tynjala > > > Bowler Hat LLC > > > https://bowlerhat.dev/ > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:33 AM Andrew Wetmore <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > I see that it is now more than a year since our last release > (0.9.12). > > Do > > > > we have enough new stuff since then to merit a new release soon? What > > > > "must" we add before doing such a release? > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > Andrew Wetmore > > > > Assistant VP, Marketing and Publicity, The ASF <http://aparch.org> > > > > Editor-Writer, Infra team, The ASF > > > > > > > > Editor, moosehousepress.com > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail > > > > > > > > > Virus-free.www.avast.com > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail > > > > > > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > > > > > > > >
