Looks at this and the chainable query thread, I think we (almost?) have a consensus on 4.0 renaming?
Andrus On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:05 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <a...@maniatis.org> wrote: > I think our parallel discussion about fluent API is very relevant here. > People using 3.2 milestones before even the first beta will cope with a > version change. And a big API update is exactly the time to release a major > new version number. > > A number is just a label, but it says something about us and about the > product. > > Release: 3.0M1 > Date: 17 Jul 2007 > > Not only is it about time after 7 years to move to the next whole number, but > not moving says a lot about lack of progress which isn't reflected in the > reality of actual features. > > > Ari > > > On 2/10/2014 6:36am, John Huss wrote: >> I agreed with sticking with 3.2. Since there isn't a major architecture >> change 3.2 seems appropriate. The smaller version change makes it seem >> less scary to people considering upgrading. >> >> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> After this amount of time, I think renaming it will cause confusion >>> when projects which are currently running 3.2 pre-final find no >>> further 3.2 upgrades in the future. >>> >>> And we've set a new precedent with 3.0 and 3.1, so I think we're ok >>> continuing down this this path. >>> >>> >>> But I don't feel strongly enough that I'd vote against it. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> >>> wrote: >>>> There were some suggestions to rename 3.2 release to just 4. I think >>> this is a good idea, as historically each of our GA release was always a >>> major thing. No matter whether we incremented the version by 1 or by 0.1. >>> So just throwing this in here for a lazy consensus. >>>> >>>> Andrus >>> >> > > -- > --------------------------> > Aristedes Maniatis > GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A >
