TL;DR: I'm not against marketing releases as such, but I agree that a
"big number" marketing release should have something reasonably
significant going for it technically. I don't think we have that here,
so I'm -1 at this point.
Obviously, I'm in favour of doing everything we can to ensure jclouds
gets as much attention as possible at JavaOne. I hope we can do that
by highlighting all the cool new stuff in the latest release + more
cool stuff on the roadmap, rather than having to resort to pulling a
"2.0.0" out of the hat for that.
In fact, I think it may be worth considering using names for releases
that are not linked to version numbers, precisely to avoid the need to
"get creative" with version numbers simply to make a release look big.
Perhaps that's something we can incorporate into the ongoing
discussion of which kind of versioning scheme we want to use moving
forward.
For me, "2.0.0", especially under the current versioning scheme where
it's almost a "super-major" release, represents the last opportunity
for a while to make pretty big changes, such as de-asyncing everything
that can be asynced, pulling jclouds-chef into the main repo, and
other Big Changes we have in mind.
The open questions for me at this point are:
* Do we really rely so much on "2.0.0" in order to get attention? Is
there some way we can craft a message for JavaOne and other
conferences that is appealing enough without having to resort to this?
* What are actually all the Big Changes that we really want to make
before pushing out a "super-major" release such as 2.0.0, i.e. is
what's on the roadmap draft 1] accurate in any way? How long would it
take to get these done?
Regards
ap
[1] https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/Roadmap
