2009/2/3 Rafael Schloming <rafa...@redhat.com>: >> I could buy into s/M/0./ for everything (but not s/M/1./). I know some >> people are opposed to releasing 0.x versions for marketing reasons, >> but that essentially removes any useful information from the rev. > > I agree, and personally I don't think marketing should enter into the > version number discussion. I think once you let marketing in, you've removed > all hope for sane and useful version numbers. ;)
I don't think the 1.x argument is about marketing, really. It's about conveying information that reflects accepted understanding of the meaning contained in the number. A 0.x release implies to many people a low level of maturity and stability. Certainly looking at the Java broker and client, only because I a most familiar with those, I know that they have many production installations today delivering business-critical messages. By labelling that 0.x I think it is painting a false impression of the maturity of the software - which is now several years old. Are we really saying that after three years qpid isn't even 1.x? I do also agree that 1.x implies a certain level of API compatibility - but I can smugly say that I have consistently argued on this forum that building an API that is closely tied to AMQP is insane. Maybe this implies that for the next release the non-Java languages need to focus on the API design. Or we should be comfortable moving to 2.x relatively quickly as the API evolves. RG --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
