> > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > compatibility > can be broken)?
Sounds good to me too, at least users wouldn't expect any difference seeing a new alphaN+1 announced. But not sure if there won't be any differences with a milestone release (M is for milestone, right?) Cheers On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 16:11, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 16:00, Bruno Kinoshita > <brunodepau...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > What would be the main difference between the alpha and M1 releases? > > > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API right, > > > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. > > > > > > Agreed, and I think if we are to release anything, we would need one or > > more extra releases before we get everything right for the 1.0. But if we > > can continue breaking backward compatibility (even though we will try > that > > to only what's necessary to reduce impact to users) with M1/M2/M3, the > same > > way we did with the alpha releases, then I'm +1 for that already. > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > compatibility > can be broken)? > > > > > [...] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org > >
