Sounds good to me. On Jun 10, 2013 10:19 PM, "Aaron McCurry" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, I guess 0.2.0 makes more sense. I am going to merge 0.1.5 to master > and re-version things. After that I'm going to cleanup the remote > branches. I will rename 0.2-dev to some experimental branch, so no one > gets confused. Any concerns? > > Aaron > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > How about we move to 0.5 for the current release and let 0.1.6 become > 0.6? > > The reason I want to do this is because 0.5.0 and if there are any bugs > > the follow on releases should 0.5.x, and the API will be > > backwards compatible. However a version change from 0.5 to 0.6 will > allow > > for changes to the API. How do people feel about this? > > > > Are there any issues with moving 0.1.5 to 0.5.0? > > > > Aaron > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Garrett Barton <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> Can get interesting and do what hadoop did and have some funky branch > >> hoping going on. 0.1.5 can go to 1.0, 0.2.0 can go to 2.0. I think the > >> branches would be odd if 0.2.0 current was replaced with the 0.1.5 code > >> base. > >> > >> Or leave it as is and deal with the rename starting with 0.2. Might be > >> simpler that way. Release notes for 0.1.5 would just be large. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Tim Williams <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > I would like to change our current version (or versioning schema) to > >> > > something a little more appropriate. The current version is 0.1.5, > >> the > >> > > previous version was 0.1.4 but there were major internal changes > >> between > >> > > those 2 versions. The versions should probably be 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 > >> which > >> > > will give the ability to have the minor number for bug fixes, e.g. > >> > "1.5.1". > >> > > > >> > > Thoughts on this, I just don't want to release as 0.1.5 and then > >> change > >> > it > >> > > soon after to something like 1.x something. > >> > > >> > I don't have strong feelings either way other than $version >= 1.0 > >> > feels like a bigger deal:) Maybe 0.2.0 to achieve similar intent? > >> > > >> > --tim > >> > > >> > > > > >
