I think we should vote, yes, and I suggest adding 2.0 as well.This is not just a point release.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > Grzegorz makes the same valid point Ayende and I have made during this > discussion. I think we are going to need some sort of consensus to decide > where we want to go with version numbers: > > a) 1.0 > b) 1.1 > c) 1.5 > d) something else > > 1.5 does seem logical because the trunk has moved on quite a lot from RC3 > (1.5yrs ago), I'm sure many people think of RC3 as the unofficial 1.0. Going > with 1.5 would avoid the confusion people will have thinking they can easily > upgrade from 1.0 RC3. > > Thoughts? > Votes (in a separate thread?) > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Grzegorz Sobanski <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> * Krzysztof Kozmic <[email protected]> [2009-02-19 16:39]: >> > I'm not a commiter, but I'll say what I think nonetheless ;) >> >> I'm just a small user of castle... >> >> > seeing 1.5 might be confusing to people, considering there never was an >> official v1.0 release. >> >> ...but I don't think releasing 1.0 now is a good idea. >> 1.5 or even 2.0 would be better. >> >> It's because RC3 was there for a looong time, and a lot (A LOT) >> has changed in the projects. Even APIs are not the same, etc, etc. >> Going from 1.0rc3 to 1.0 is a step that suggest it is API compatible, >> and only contains bugfixes. >> >> I would acknowledge that rc3 was de facto 1.0 and was used as such, >> and release 1.5. >> >> HTH >> silk >> >> >> > > > -- > Jono > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
