On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 21:52 +0200, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 14:15 +0200, memoComp Open Source Team wrote: > > I couldn't find any evidence on the mailing list why the version was > > changed from the established 1.0bXX scheme to 0.21 > > And 0.XX (and even 1.0bXX) doesn't make sense in our opinion, because we > > (and I think a lot others do) use it in production since 1.0b15 without > > major issues in the last 8+ years. > > So I think a 1.x version is absolutely reasonable, especially as we put > > a lot effort in stabilizing and fixing the branch... > > You are quite right, the community in the past has gone between the two > manners. There was a discussion at some time highlighting the open > source way typically places no notion of stability on a "1.0" release, > rather it is a goal, but where that discussion is i cannot find. > > As you and Johannes make up the active community now i think this > decision is entirely up to you (maybe Hussayn has something to say?). > Also i appreciate the view you state above for wanting to use 1.0bXX.
/ignore was posted to wrong list. ~mck -- "Perl: The only language that looks the same before and after RSA encryption." Keith Bostic | http://github.com/finn-no | http://tech.finn.no |
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
