Definitely a +1 Matt
On 7/1/13 2:28 PM, "John Burwell" <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: >All, > >Since we have adopted Semantic Versioning [1], it seems odd that we >designate a release version before the final set of enhancements/fixes >has been identified. For example, the release proceeding 4.2 may contain >no backwards compatible API changes to be 4.3. Conversely, we may decide >during the development cycle, as a community, to accept a non-backwards >compatible change which would bump the version to 5.0.0. As such, it is >difficult to know in advance what the proper semantic version number will >be at when the work is released. We run the risk of confusing our users >if we start calling a pending release say 4.3.0, and accept a change >mid-cycle that will bump it to 5.0.0. To address this potential issue, I >proposed that we refer to releases by a codename until feature freeze >when we understand the complete scope of change and can apply the correct >semantic version number. I further propose we codename the release >directly proceeding 4.2 "Gamma Rays" or "Gamma Rays Gonna Get Ya". > >Thoughts? >-John > >[1]: http://semver.org
