Good point. We may want to figure out a way to do a beta before. On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Eric Merritt <[email protected]>wrote:
> 1.0.0.0 Assumes a certain level of stability in general. We probably > have that, but we should be aware of the implications. > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Jordan Wilberding > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I vote for bumping to 1.0.0.0? What other implications does it carry > other > > than saying it is a major new version(IE: apis and configs may have > > changed). > > Thanks! > > JW > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Eric Merritt <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Guys, > >> > >> We have made a bunch of sinan changes over the last few months, they > >> where good solid changes that needed to happen, they gave us a nice > >> base to build on, but they really didn't effect your use of sinan > >> very much. Things got faster and coding in sinan became easier but > >> the sinan user didn't really feel the change. Well the next set of > >> changes are going to be impactful. That is they are going to give us > >> functionality that we need but they are not going to be backwards > >> compatible. > >> > >> > >> I am converting the configuration over to sane erlang terms format, > >> along with some other expansion of what and how things can be > >> configured. This is all in preparation for a later change that > >> vastly expands project dependency configuration. So your existing > >> sinan config files are no longer going to be compatible. Though the > >> transition should be pretty easy. > >> > >> So this all brings up the question, how should we go about > >> releasing. Sinan uses the '0.0.0.0' version string with the current > >> version about to be '0.23.0.0'. We tend to make the second number > >> our major version number and we haven't used the first number at > >> all. I am tempted no just bump it to '1.0.0.0' but that carries some > >> implications to the world at large that I am not sure is good. It > >> could be that that is ignorable though. > >> > >> At the moment, I am thinking I will just bump it to one, and if we > >> ever do another major backwards incompatible change bump it to 2 > >> etc. However, I am open to suggestions and advice on this subject. > >> > >> > >> Eric > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Eric Merritt > >> Erlang & OTP in Action (Manning) http://manning.com/logan > >> http://twitter.com/ericbmerritt > >> http://erlware.org > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "erlware-dev" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> [email protected]. > >> For more options, visit this group at > >> http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en. > >> > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "erlware-dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "erlware-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
