I'd be in favour of 0.8.0. It'd be great to iterate much faster on releases. I assume under semantic versioning that we don't have to stop when we reach 0.9 :-)
Richard. On 31 August 2015 at 18:56, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for 0.8.0. I don't see a lot of value in a milestone release at this > point. > > Alex, re: package split, I don't think so, but even if we discover something > it shouldn't be a blocker. > > Hadrian > > > On 08/31/2015 12:55 PM, Aled Sage wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> We should aim for a 0.8.0 release candidate soon as well. >> >> What else do we need after an M1 before we can have 0.8.0? Should we >> just go straight for 0.8.0?! >> >> Aled >> >> >> On 31/08/2015 17:31, Alex Heneveld wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Now that the package rename is pretty much done, I'd like to get an >>> 080-M1 out, maybe kick this off tomorrow? >>> >>> This will be nice for users who have been disrupted by the rename!! >>> >>> With #873 ready for review we can even offer backwards compatibility >>> for persisted state, although any user java code will have to have >>> imports optimized (or if you prefer, run a `sed -i` over the code >>> based on `deserializedClassRenames.properties` -- we should document >>> this in the release notes -- any volunteers for that?). >>> >>> We'll go through the existing PR's and finish the scan of plans/docs >>> (as discussed at #873), but if there are any other pieces of work let >>> us know. >>> >>> @Hadrian -- are there more renames to come to remove the OSGi split >>> packages? >>> >>> Best >>> Alex >>> >>> >> >> >
