On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:43 PM, James Turnbull wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> I've been looking at the tickets for 0.26.0 and think perhaps we >>> should rename this release to 1.0.0. >>> >>> It makes logical sense to me given the remaining REST migration. >> >> I think we should rename it to a codename, and stop talking about >> version numbers. >> >> Early decision on versions is exactly how we got in the two year hell >> that was 0.25, and just using codenames until release is the easiest >> way to avoid it. I've been meaning to switch the 0.26 release name >> to >> a codename (we can always change it on release). >> >> Seem reasonable? >> > > For developers it probably sounds good... but for business managers > being sold on it, it does not make as much sense. They like boring > things numbered versions and such. The higher the sell the more they > want a nice solid IBM like number.
We'll use a real version number when it's released, I just don't want to pick the number until the actual release. -- Never esteem anything as of advantage to you that will make you break your word or lose your self-respect. -- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
