On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Colin McCabe <[email protected]> wrote:
> In general, though, I think that a 3.1.0 release would provide > the same level of functionality as the 3.0.4, and maybe the next > release is 4.0.0? > No need to hasten to 4.0. Let's see what features/improvements/changes we want to get out and we can label releases accordingly. On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > >> What we did for Phoenix is make an initial ASF release that was the > >> granted code with a package name search-and-replace and minor version > >> increment. This let us focus on all the Apache packaging and release > >> concerns like NOTICE file wording, RAT compliance, etc. and provided an > >> opportunity for existing users to migrate to an ASF artifact at low > risk - > >> just package renames. Then we made a major version increment and put in > >> some significant new features for that next release. > >> > >> > >> > > I think we should do this. > > > > Lets stamp it 3.1.0-SNAPSHOT and do a release *tout de suite* that is > > effectually the same as our 3.0.4 only it has new apache packaging and > then > > move forward from there. > > > > Letting above hang another few days in case more opinions otherwise will > > move on the above > > Thanks, > > St.Ack > > > > > > > >> > >> > On Dec 5, 2014, at 9:36 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > I think going backwards to 1.0 would be confusing for any existing > users. > >> > Maybe make the -incubating releases pickup 3.1.x with the intention of > >> the > >> > first graduated release being 4.0.0. Could be seen as artificially > >> > inflating the version numbers, but I don't think that matters too > much. I > >> > assume (prefer) we'll follow the guidelines of semantic versioning. > >> > > >> > -n > >> > > >> >> On Friday, December 5, 2014, Colin McCabe <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I looked at > >> >> > >> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-versioning > >> >> and it doesn't say whether we need to start at 1. Hmm. > >> >> > >> >> I think either way could work. There is stuff from org.htrace up on > >> >> Maven central, but since we're moving to org.apache.htrace, we won't > >> >> conflict if we choose to go back to 1.0.0. I don't really have any > >> >> preference between 1.0.0 or 4.0.0. > >> >> > >> >> best, > >> >> Colin > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Stack <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> org.htrace was at 3.0.4 > >> >>> > >> >>> The next release could be 4.0.0. > >> >>> > >> >>> Or we could roll back and make it 1.0.0? > >> >>> > >> >>> Any opinions out there? > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks, > >> >>> St.Ack > >> >> > >> >
