On Jan 8, 2008 1:13 AM, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the problem with 0.4.3, 0.4.4 etc. is that we assign those numbers as > milestones in trac, and we do have a notion of a set of features that > will be slowly rolled out over the course of the 0.4 series.
[nod] That makes sense if you're assigning versions that way. Actually, it looks like Pylons is the same. I thought it was a three-level system but the current version is 0.9.6.1. > as far as the "0.", im really glad that the 0.1 series wasnt called > "SQLAlchemy 1.0" , as well as that 0.2 wasnt "SQLAlchemy 2.0", etc. > 0.1 and 0.2 were absolutely not major-version number products. 0.4 is > starting to look more major versioned to me, but if we went thru 0.4 > and then jumped to 1.0, that would seem kind of brittle as well. Well, 1.0 also implies a long-term commitment to the API, so you don't want to do it while you're still deciding what you want. I'm glad 0.3 wasn't called 1. 0.4 and its documentation are close to the quality of a 1.0 release. But you know better than I what SQLAlchemy 1.0 "should" contain. Do you have a specific set of features you want in it? Or are you just going to wait until the changes slow down and then make that version 1.0? -- Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
