> On Sep 18, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Oliver Heger [mailto:oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de] >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 06:37 >> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RC2] Release "Apache Commons RNG" version 1.0 >> >> >> >> Am 17.09.2016 um 18:13 schrieb Gary Gregory: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Gilles: I can see you are frustrated by the late comments and opinions >> when >>> the code has been sitting in the repo for all to see. I hope we can >> resolve >>> all of this amicably. >>> >>> All: We have only one shot at 1.0, this will set the tone for a 1.x >> line. >>> If things change/mature/break enough then it becomes 2.0, but if it >> happens >>> too soon, then it might give the impression that our process is not >> mature. >>> >>> It seems we have a difference of opinion as to whether the current >> code is >>> ready for 1.0. >>> >>> Now that we have both sides engaged in this discussion, we can try to >>> resolve these differences in email agreements or in code changes. >> Maybe the >>> -1 party could create Jiras to address specific issues, or should all >> this >>> happen on the ML? >> >> Currently only Gilles responded to the proposals of Emmanuel. I would >> also be interested in the PoV of the other developers. >> >> Oliver >> > > [orcmid] > > Rather than have this run around in circles and frustrate the great work > Gilles has provided in advancing Commons RNG, would it work to call it 0.9 > and get it out the door? > > I say 0.9 because under norms for version numbers, the 0.*.* are assumed to > be vulnerable to breaking changes in interfaces - signatures and behaviors. > And since there is apparently some objection to the API and the prospect of > breaking changes it would be nice to (1) get this work in folks' hands and > (2) get to work on whatever needs to be done about the API.
Oh, I forgot to say that I’m +1 for either 1.0 or 0.9. It just felt like 0.9 set fairly reasonable middle ground. -Rob > > I am making no assumptions about the quality of the API. 0.9 is insurance > until that argument and use by others can be settled. Then the API > discussion can happen in some constructive place far better than the [VOTE] > thread. > > - Dennis > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
