On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org> wrote: > On 11/15/2011 01:43 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >> +1 to Steve's proposal. Renaming 0.20 is too big a pain at this point. > > Everyone seems to agree that we should rename 0.23 to either 2.0 or 3.0. > There are a number of different views about what to do with 0.20, 0.21 > and 0.22. So maybe we should proceed where there's consensus and not > argue extensively where there's disagreement? > > Since 0.23 has little install base yet it should be easy to rename. If > we're not going to rename 0.20, 0.21 or 0.22 releases then 3.0 seems > inappropriate. > > Can we agree to 0.23 -> 2.0? That's consistent with the MR2 nomenclature. >
Are you suggesting a two part version scheme? Ie 0.23.0 -> 2.0 0.23.1 -> 2.1 I'm +1 to that. fwiw I'd map 0.20.200.0 to 1.0, 203.0 would be 1.3, 205.0, would be 1.5. I wouldn't rename 21 since we've abandoned it. I wouldn't rename 22 either since it both has features that are in 20x, and 20x has features not in 22, and is not yet released or stable. Seems hard to come up with a reasonable version number for it. Thanks, Eli
