I buy your argument, and would be happy to see this be our 1.0 release. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Matei Zaharia <[email protected]>wrote:
> I would seriously consider 1.0 because "complete" depends on how you > choose to define it. There will always be new features to add, but Mesos > already does a bunch of things well, and it's been doing them well for a > while. There's nothing wrong with having 2.0 a year or two later. > > I guess part of the question is how much confidence you want people to > have in the stability and reliability of the release. I think the software > is quite stable compared to other projects with similar version numbers. If > we think there's a major change that needs to happen we could also consider > 0.9. > > Matei > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Andy Konwinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'd be happy to see it start with a bit higher number than 0.0.1 as well, > > to give a more accurate impression of its stability, especially given > that > > it is running in production at Twitter. > > > > I'd preference to go with something less than 1.0 since often 1.0 is > > reserved for software that "is 'complete', ... has all major features, > and > > is considered reliable enough for general release" ( > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Version_1.0_as_a_milestone > ) > > and we still have a number of features we want to add. > > > > I like 0.5.0 because it naturally follows where we currently are in the > > alpha versioning system we've been using (i.e. alpha 0.4), just we drop > the > > "alpha" prefix. > > > > Andy > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Benjamin Hindman < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > >> I'm not attached to 0.0.1, just the major.minor.patch versioning. By all > >> means let's start at 0.5.0, or 0.1.0. > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Matei Zaharia <[email protected] > >>> wrote: > >> > >>> Why don't we start with 0.5 or even 1.0, given that we already had > >>> numbered alpha releases and the project has been around for a while? > >>> > >>> Matei > >>> > >>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Andy Konwinski <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> I chatted with Ben about this, and we propose that we use 0.0.1 for > the > >>>> version number for our first apache release, and we adopt versioning > >>> rules > >>>> like these http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html (i.e. the version > >>> scheme > >>>> is major.minor.patch). > >>>> > >>>> Does anybody have thoughts or objections? > >>>> > >>>> I've added a new "version" in JIRA called "0.0.1" that (pending this > >>>> discussion) we can start using to keep track of which Issues are > >> intended > >>>> to go into the first release (see > >>>> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS/fixforversion/12319875whichis > >>>> currently pretty boring because I've only assigned one issue to it, as > >> a > >>>> test) > >>>> > >>>> Note: we used version numbers before entering the incubator to > identify > >>> our > >>>> github tagged alpha "releases", the most recent one being alpha 0.4 > >> (see > >>>> https://github.com/mesos/mesos/tags) > >>>> > >>>> Andy > >>> > >> >
