On Nov 30, 2007, at 8:54 PM, Simon Willison wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 6:33 am, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think we ought to call the release 2.0. > > I'm -0.5 on this (if that's possible). I understand the thinking > behind it, but "1.0" isn't an arbitrary version number - it has a very > specific meaning: "the APIs are frozen, it's safe to build things > without worrying that backwards compatibility will be broken". That's > what we've been telling people for the past couple of years, and as a > result I feel it would be odd to use 2.0 to make the statement that > version numbers are meaningless after all. Apologies for chiming in late. I agree with Simon's sentiments. Moreover, if the point is that version numbers mean nothing, which is fine, then what mechanism is used to convey API compatibility between releases? Shifting to a more personal stance, I never cared much for the term "Web 2.0". It seems too gimmicky. That's largely the impression I get with a Django 2.0 without a prior Django 1.0. -- Kevin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
