"Jacob Kaplan-Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Reading over what I've written so far, it seems that I'm shying away from > difficult tasks. Perhaps I am, but the fact is that the longer we linger > in a pre-release stage the more our potential community slips away. I > don't use the number "1.0" lightly, and I know that it locks us in > somewhat, but that very lockin is what draws developers to stable code. > Most of the big feature you propose are things that I would give my left > thumb to see added to Django, but at the same time I don't want Django to > become a project that lingers in perpetual pre-release. If we decide > that these features can't be done in a backwards-compatible way and have > to release a 2.0 six months after 1.0, what's the harm in that?
+1. Waxing philosophical: what version do we have now? 0.0? I didn't think we were doing 0.x stuff. I did think of it as 1.0 Beta NNN because our goal is 1.0. When we will do incompatible changes after 1.0, it is not 1.x Rev MMM anymore --- it is 2.0 Beta MMM. Django was useable the first day it was published. To me that was 1.0 version even it was not called like that. Okay, let's call it 0.0 and release 1.0 now incorporating small changes and adding a few documents. Why bother with 0.9 stuff? It is just a name. All big stuff mentioned in this thread is going to be rolled in and released as 2.0 as soon as it is finished. Thanks, Eugene
