I don't see a problem with having a lot of .0 releases. The numbers in versions are just that: numbers. If we have supefluous .0 attached to our releases, then people specify an extra 2 letters when they type in the version. Not the end of the world in my book :).
But, I don't feel too strongly outside of wanting us to consistently follow whatever versioning semantics we are following. --Eric On Wednesday, June 19, 2013, Jordan Zimmerman wrote: > I think you're right. I've been using the last digit as a minor change, > but it's really for patches. I wonder how many patches we'll actually have, > though. Maybe the patch digit can be done away with altogether and we can > just use [ma].[mi] versioning. > > -JZ > > On Jun 19, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Eric Tschetter <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > I have no objections, but would like to clarify the versioning scheme. > If > > we are following semantic versioning, then I think those tickets warrant > a > > 2.1.0. > > > > --Eric > > > > On Wednesday, June 19, 2013, Jordan Zimmerman wrote: > > > >> Barring any objections, I can start a release on the currently committed > >> 2.0.2 tickets: > >> > >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12324401 > >> > >> -Jordan > >> > >> On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Narayanan A R < > >> [email protected] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Please schedule a release for 2.0.2. I want to use the callback feature > >>> added to sync() operation. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Nara > >> > >> > >
