I like short names (and to me, 2.0 doesn't conflict with a subsequent 2.0.1), so either 2.0 or 2.0.0 would be my preference.
(But no strong preference. Other name is fine too.) Remko On Monday, February 3, 2014, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > I vote for 2.0.0... and my vote is non-binding. :-) > > > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Nick Williams < > nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net');> > > wrote: > >> I'm finalizing the logging chapter of my book to send to the printers >> Wednesday (I'm so glad I got to correct it to say Level was extendable!), >> and I need to know what the Maven artifact GA version number will be. I >> print the new Maven artifacts used in each chapter on the first page of the >> chapter as a guide to the user. Log4j is the only library I'm using that >> isn't yet GA. I want to be sure the version numbers I'm printing are >> correct. >> >> Here are the options that I can think of for the GA release: >> >> 2.0 >> 2.0-GA >> 2.0.GA >> 2.0.Final >> 2.0.RELEASE >> 2.0.0 >> 2.0.0-GA >> 2.0.0.GA >> 2.0.0.Final >> 2.0.0.RELEASE >> >> So, which is it going to be? I assume that eventually we're going to have >> a 2.0.1, 2.0.2, etc., so it would seem to me that, whatever GA is, it >> should start with 2.0.0. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to go from 2.0 >> to 2.0.1. However, all of our beta releases have been 2.0-Betan. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Nick >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org');> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >> log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org');> >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > Paul >
