> 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

Reply via email to