2009/2/9 Robert Godfrey <[email protected]>: > I'd rather stay on M5 and work towards a release which can be > 1.0
I think it would be good to have a discussion - hopefully leading to consensus (!) - on what people think we need to have achieved to merit a 1.x release. To my mind, if people agree those items and they are different from what is in scope in our next release, that implies we don't have the correct focus for our next release(s). > Why wasn't this offered as an option - I know at least one other > person wanted that on the list? I think the status quo should be offered as an option. If I understand correctly, people wanting the status quo are not arguing that it is the ideal version numbering scheme, but that there are issues that prevent us moving to a more sensible scheme at the moment? My own view is that Mx is a weak numbering scheme - something I have always felt and I have no idea why incubator projects have to be numbered (or should I say encumbered) in such a way. I am not sure what "milestone" means in that context - is a milestone not a stage on the way to a clearly defined goal? Irrespective of which features or project changes we need to have in future releases, moving to a very boring, standard release numbering convention would be a welcome move for our (potential) users. I also seem to recall that some people brought up the point a while ago that certain unix package systems (e.g. rpm) only work with an x.y.z release numbering scheme, so we already have some use of an alternative scheme (or am I mistaken)? RG --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
