I see the current state as a good start to continue, so I dont see anyneed to keep 0.1. If we would through out contextuality, this would change. That would be a showstopper for me...
2015-01-07 20:48 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>: > @mark: +1 > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2015-01-07 8:00 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > > > There is a 0.1 branch and I didn't want to clash with it. > > > > Also if you look at all the core concepts then you will see that there is > > a huge difference between what has been there initially (0.1) and what we > > do have now after all the very good discussions. > > > > I personally don't care much about the version. But I'd say we should > only > > go back to 0.1 if we all agree that the concepts we now have in 0.2 is > the > > way to go and we do not need the 0.1 branch anymore. > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 7:29, Anatole Tresch <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > +1 for 0.1 > > > John D. Ament <[email protected]> schrieb am Mi., 7. Jan. 2015 um > > > 02:42: > > > > > >> All, > > >> > > >> Seems like we are targetting a 0.2 release and forgetting about 0.1. > > >> > > >> It seems like things have settled down a bit, so why wouldn't we call > > > the > > >> first release 0.1 instead of 0.2? > > >> > > >> John > > >> > > > > > > -- *Anatole Tresch* Java Engineer & Architect, JSR Spec Lead Glärnischweg 10 CH - 8620 Wetzikon *Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1* *Twitter: @atsticks* *Blogs: **http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/ <http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/>* *Google: atsticksMobile +41-76 344 62 79*
