I vote option 2. My rationale is the same as Phil and Joshua. On 11/08/2011 10:26 AM, Schmurfy wrote: > Hi, > As a (mostly) silent watcher of this mailing list I really have the impression > than beyond tests or experimentation the 3.0 branch is not really used which > would not be that surprinsing for a beta version. > > I want to put zeromq to use but did not get a good chance to do it for now. > Option 2 take my vote. > > On 8 November 2011 01:04, Phil Stanhope <stanh...@gmail.com > <mailto:stanh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > i have nothing in production ... but would want a path from 2.1 to 3.1 and > predictable path (to the extent possible) going forward. > > So ... option 2. > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Joshua Foster <jhaw...@gmail.com > <mailto:jhaw...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Option 2. I never really got far enough with 3.0 since I couldn't see > a > forward path from 2.1 to 3.0 to 4.0. > > Joshua > > On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Martin Sustrik <sust...@250bpm.com > <mailto:sust...@250bpm.com>> wrote: > > > >> It's up to Pieter whether he wants to maintain 3-0 further. > >> Pieter, what do you think? > > > > /me was expecting this to bounce back to me. I'm going to bounce > this > > back to the community since the only rationale for maintaining a > > version is that there are people who need that version. > > > > So let's take a vote. These are the options I can see, please choose > > one and argue / vent as you like: > > > > Option 1: maintain 3.0 through to stable, eventually deprecate 2.1 > and > > then start packaging 3.1 as alpha. Pros: it's consistent and gives > the > > impression we know what we're doing. Cons: it's insane because 3.1 > > speaks its own wire protocol incompatible with previous and > following > > versions. > > > > Option 2: deprecate 3.0 now, and start packaging 3.1 as alpha. Since > > it's wire compatible with 2.1, people can test it immediately and we > > should be able to push it through to maturity rapidly. Pros: > simplest. > > Cons: anyone using 3.0 in real life is kind of screwed. > > > > Option 3: remove labels from 3.0 and make it wire-compatible with > 2.1 > > and 3.1. Continue with current release planning. Pros: gives us the > > release story we should have had from the start IMO. Cons: not sure > if > > it's even possible. > > > > -Pieter > > _______________________________________________ > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org <mailto:zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
-- Amr Ali
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
