Trustin Lee a écrit :
"Some consider bumping the minor number several notches from say a 1.0
to a
1.5 for example to connotate a change in platform like switching from JDK
1.4 to JDK 5.0. This is also an acceptable tactic to employ."
I would rather start from 2.1 than from 1.5 because it shows that it
has a
big change more clearly. But we lose 2.0. That's why I talked about
switching the meaning of even and odd. :)
Trustin, I think you make a confusion about the meaning of "Stable". In
our case - delivering a server, an API -, stable means "The
API/functionnalities won't change for a while". It does not mean "Bug
free", because reaching a bug free state for a project is like having a
curve "touching" it's assymptote :)
So we can have a 2.0, without any problem, as we have had a 1.0. (with
some problems, I must admit ;)
When we are talking about unstable, we mean : "Don't dare using this
version in production, we won't guarantee any bug/function fix in a
reasonnable timeframe". These odd versions are experimental. It's better
to have them than to work in branches, because the roadmap is easier to
define.
The question about 1.5/2.0 related to the switch to Java 5 is totally
different. As it has been stated, 1.5 is a simple way for users to know
that they will need a Java 5 compatible JVM, nothing else. But if you
feel that the modifications will be too huge, then it can really make
sense to switch to 2.0.
Emmanuel.
PS : Of course, all this discussion is purely about semantic. If you
want some good idea about numbering and meaning of even/odd, I suggest
you listen "Space Oddity" - David Bowie - and "Stairway to Even" - Led
Zeppelin - (I know, is 'heaven' ... :)
