I was also thinking that 3.1-beta might be an option too. This way we get to announce twice, once for 3.1-beta and once for 3.1 . We also get to keep the release in sync with EJB 3.1 . Just a thought, but I guess I am too late in expressing my opinion , as the voting already started and most people agree upon EJB 3.1. So, I will give my +1 to EJB 3.1 too :) .
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 23, 2008, at 4:35 PM, David Blevins wrote: > >> We might want to start thinking release pretty soon here. >> > > Another topic is weather or not we want to call this 3.0.1 or 3.1. > > I was just talking to one of the guys from InfoQ about the upcoming release > and he definitely liked some of the new features but sort of went cold on > the idea of a news post wanting to wait till 3.1. Got me thinking that > maybe 3.0.1 isn't such a wise idea if we really want to get the word out > there. > > If you look at our changes, they're mostly new features and improvements > with just a few bug fixes. My thoughts previous to talking with him was > that we should reserve 3.1 for a more EJB 3.1 packed release. But really we > already have a few great EJB 3.1 features like the embedded testing stuff > and ejbs in wars. > > Maybe the right answer is just to go for the gusto and call it OpenEJB 3.1 > and get people starting to think of us as EJB 3.1. > > Thoughts? > > -David > > -- Karan Singh Malhi
