On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Justin Ross <justin.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We can still change it. I know Robbie isn't sold either, and I'm open to > the alternative we discussed: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc. > It might be worth a recap of the original discussion since it happened so near the holidays, people night not have been around to follow it closely. I know I pretty much missed the whole thing. > I should note that while I think the date-based approach is reasonable, > it's not a good fit for a pure-API module such as qpid-proton or qpid-jms. > There I think you want the major number to signal the presence or absence > of big API changes. > +1 Did the original discussion have some proposed implication for proton versioning? > Since it wasn't mentioned before: I also like 31, 32, 33 for Qpid C++ and > similar. It's the style that Firefox uses, and I think it does a slightly > better job of representing the pace and lifecycle of some of our > components. Stated negatively, it avoids the major number becoming > arbitrary--more marketing than substance. > > In summary, my preference: > > Pure API modules such as qpid-jms, -proton: 0.1, 0.2, 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, > etc. > Servers, tools, test suites: 31, 32, 33, 33.1, etc. > Is the big impetus here just to have something more "mature" looking, i.e. have something in front of the dot? --Rafael
