I don't think there are any hard rules about what constitutes a 1.0 release, except perhaps some subjective measure of completeness, and some measure of backwards compatibility support. For example, Lucene insures that every major release number (3.x, 4.x) are index-compatible.
I don't know what the equivalent major release equivalent would be for ManifoldCF. We have a mature database schema which self-upgrades, so that is not going to work in the same way as Lucene indexes. We *could* just keep counting: 0.7, 0.8. 0.9, 0.10, 0.11 etc. But that gets cumbersome too. Karl On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Piergiorgio Lucidi <piergior...@apache.org> wrote: > Taking a look at all the recent fixes, I think that we could release a new > version of ManifoldCF because there are many improvements: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+CONNECTORS+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%22ManifoldCF+0.7%22+AND+status+%3D+Resolved+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC&mode=hide > > I don't know what rules are defined for calling it as "1.0", but in the > meanwhile we could release a 0.7 version. > Personally I think that this new release could be named 1.0, but this is my > feeling :) > > Piergiorgio > > > 2012/8/27 Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> > >> Hi Folks, >> >> It's already time to start winding down the 0.7 release. >> >> Before this is done, I think we need the following: >> >> (1) Voting on the current outstanding SharePoint-2007 plugin release. >> Still need 2 votes. >> (2) Completion of, and voting on the new SharePoint-2010 plugin release. >> (3) Completion of all outstanding tickets marked "Fix in ManifoldCF 0.7". >> >> I'd also like to explore what the criteria should be for calling a >> release "1.0". It seems to me that Jukka and others might have an >> idea of when this would be appropriate. Does anyone have any thoughts >> on this matter? >> >> Thanks, >> Karl >> >> -- >> Piergiorgio Lucidi >> http://www.open4dev.com >> >>
