2009/2/10 Aidan Skinner <[email protected]>: > (moving this to another thread so as to make tallying the vote easier) > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Robert Greig <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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). > > I think that's a separate issue. We do need to talk about our release > process a bit more, but that's probably best done in another thread. > Possibly this one: http://markmail.org/message/5bxobdc23rgbmqu7
I think we need to have a rationale for changing the release numbering scheme at *this* release. Given the lack of interoperability between components if I were only given the choice of 0.5 and 1.5 then I would have to pick 0.5 right now. I really don't want to do that as I think 0.5 significantly understates the maturity of the product. However given we are currently scheduling the work to bring the Java Broker up to 0-10 support I would rather hold off changing the numbering scheme until that work has been done. At that point I would think we could move to a version numbering scheme with a major version > 0. This would make me happy. -- Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
