Alright. I figured an early 2.0.0 release was a bit of a long shot. Good discussion though. Let’s continue it on the “jclouds roadmap” thread.
Thanks, Everett On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Andrew Phillips <aphill...@qrmedia.com> wrote: > 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