I would seriously consider 1.0 because "complete" depends on how you choose to define it. There will always be new features to add, but Mesos already does a bunch of things well, and it's been doing them well for a while. There's nothing wrong with having 2.0 a year or two later.
I guess part of the question is how much confidence you want people to have in the stability and reliability of the release. I think the software is quite stable compared to other projects with similar version numbers. If we think there's a major change that needs to happen we could also consider 0.9. Matei On Feb 16, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Andy Konwinski <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd be happy to see it start with a bit higher number than 0.0.1 as well, > to give a more accurate impression of its stability, especially given that > it is running in production at Twitter. > > I'd preference to go with something less than 1.0 since often 1.0 is > reserved for software that "is 'complete', ... has all major features, and > is considered reliable enough for general release" ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Version_1.0_as_a_milestone) > and we still have a number of features we want to add. > > I like 0.5.0 because it naturally follows where we currently are in the > alpha versioning system we've been using (i.e. alpha 0.4), just we drop the > "alpha" prefix. > > Andy > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Benjamin Hindman > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I'm not attached to 0.0.1, just the major.minor.patch versioning. By all >> means let's start at 0.5.0, or 0.1.0. >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Matei Zaharia <[email protected] >>> wrote: >> >>> Why don't we start with 0.5 or even 1.0, given that we already had >>> numbered alpha releases and the project has been around for a while? >>> >>> Matei >>> >>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Andy Konwinski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I chatted with Ben about this, and we propose that we use 0.0.1 for the >>>> version number for our first apache release, and we adopt versioning >>> rules >>>> like these http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html (i.e. the version >>> scheme >>>> is major.minor.patch). >>>> >>>> Does anybody have thoughts or objections? >>>> >>>> I've added a new "version" in JIRA called "0.0.1" that (pending this >>>> discussion) we can start using to keep track of which Issues are >> intended >>>> to go into the first release (see >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS/fixforversion/12319875which is >>>> currently pretty boring because I've only assigned one issue to it, as >> a >>>> test) >>>> >>>> Note: we used version numbers before entering the incubator to identify >>> our >>>> github tagged alpha "releases", the most recent one being alpha 0.4 >> (see >>>> https://github.com/mesos/mesos/tags) >>>> >>>> Andy >>> >>
