So as to not confuse people, even if we never put out a 4.1, I think we should keep it 4.0.x, in line with 2.2.x, 3.0.x, 3.11.x. And yes our <More Major>.<Major>.<Patch> versioning of the past never followed semver.
-Jeremiah > On Sep 24, 2018, at 11:45 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > I’d like to propose we don’t do Semver. Back when we did this before, there > wasn’t any clear distinction between a major and a minor release. They were > both infrequent, both big, and were treated as majors for EOL'ing support for > older releases. This must surely have been confusing for users, and I’m not > sure what we got from it? > > Why don’t we keep it simple, and just have major.patch? So we would release > simply ‘4’ now, and the next feature release would be ‘5'. > > > > >> On 24 Sep 2018, at 17:34, Michael Shuler <mich...@pbandjelly.org> wrote: >> >> On 9/24/18 7:09 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: >>> I propose we move all new features and improvements to 4.0.x to keep the >>> surface area of change for the major stable. >> >> It occurs to me that we should probably update the version in trunk to >> 4.0.0, if we're following semantic versions. I suppose this also means >> all the tickets for 4.x should be updated to 4.0.x, 4.0 to 4.0.0, etc. >> >> -- >> Michael >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
