Hi! It took me a while to re-read the entire release cadence thread, to answer this with but in the end I found some time :)
After thinking about it, I have to disagree with the proposed date. Everett, I know I previously said I was OK with the proposal, but after reading the entire thread and thinking more about it, I believe we should wait (my apologies if this causes trouble), for several reasons: * We already have "announced" the 2.0.0 release date in the Roadmap page [1]. Yes, it says January and not February, but we'd better delay it one month than advancing it four. All the effort we're putting in predictability, would be wasted if we change what we have been announcing for at least two months (that's what the page history says). * We can announce 1.8 there. I think the big impact is caused by big new features and not by a big number. We have the opportunity to announce (and demo?) Docker and SoftLayer. I'm pretty sure that Docker will bring much more attention than putting the "2" as the major digit. We did a blog post and some tweets, but it would be great to give to our latest major (1.8) a good announce there based on its key new features. * We can share our roadmap and plan for 2.0. This way we can show the world that jclouds has a hie roadmap with new challenges for the next major. Coming up: use of Java 7 in 2.0, etc, etc. We can show the project already has some ambitious plans for the 2.0 release and we can engage people and make them stay tuned. * I'm also introducing jclouds at ApacheCon this November, and that would be also a great event that could justify a major version. With the given arguments, why not? I personally think there is no benefit in such marketing releases. as I said before I think people is more impressed and attracted by the key features that are presented than by a major number, and specially if you can present an ambitious plan for what's coming up. I. [1] https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/Roadmap On 31 August 2014 22:02, Everett Toews <everett.to...@rackspace.com> wrote: > On Aug 30, 2014, at 2:34 PM, Andrew Gaul <g...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Why should we release 2.0 out of step with the agreed-upon major release >> cadence? If we cannot follow our own policy for the first release after >> agreeing upon a policy, what confidence does that give our users in >> subsequent releases, or in future policies? > > This is certainly a potential consequence of my proposal and is something we > could bring up on the user list. We could ask our users how they would feel > about such a move. > >> Users are not impressed by >> big, round version numbers and jclouds is unlikely to realize a big >> boost in interest due to 2.0. > > I disagree. Notice how Google announced Android L (big round version letter > in this case) at Google I/O and Apple announced iOS 7 at WWDC. Another recent > instance is Docker announcing Docker 1.0 at DockerCon. Obviously this isn’t a > coincidence. > > At these conferences they have the undivided attention of developers for a > brief time. A rare thing. Making such announcements of big round version > numbers helps them gain mind share/market share. > >> What benefit do you believe that announcing dropping Java 6 provides? > > Reread my proposal. I am not emphasizing dropping Java 6. I am emphasizing > the use of Java 7. There’s a big difference. > > For a brief time, I too will have the undivided attention of many Java > developers. I hope to make an impression and gain more users and maybe even > pique the interest of potential contributors. Demonstrating that we’ve moved > on to Java 7 with a major release will enable this. > >> Instead of creating an artificial marketing release, > > I certainly agree that this is a marketing driven release. > >> perhaps we could >> announce Amazon Glacier and soon Google Cloud Storage providers, which >> completes our support for all major object stores? Or announce the new >> Docker provider and improved SoftLayer support? Users have long >> requested some of these providers and delivering them is something >> tangible to crow about. > > Definitely. I love making these kinds of announcements. This is all good > stuff that I’ll be including. > > Thanks, > Everett >
