On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 08:41:53PM +0000, Everett Toews wrote: > On Aug 23, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Andrew Gaul <g...@apache.org> wrote: > > Given the lack of positive feedback to semantic versioning perhaps we > > should table your proposal until you can convince other developers of > > its benefits? I do not exactly oppose this idea, but I see its > > advantages as modest and smaller then the transition costs. > > Note that neither of the points below having anything to do with semver > whatsoever. > > In fact, the first point is the original purpose of this thread that you > started, choosing a major release cadence. The second point was quoted > directly from you, regarding minor point upgrades. > > This is the common ground we agree on and I thought we could move forward on > these 2 points alone for the sake of progress. Do you have any arguments for > or against the 2 points below?
You explicitly used semvar-style version numbers. Is this an implicit part of your proposal? We already agreed to a six-month major release cadence and already do not break compatibility between minor (micro) releases. What exactly do you propose other than using these new-style version numbers? -- Andrew Gaul http://gaul.org/
