My +1 for 1.0.0. I already changed it to 0.10.0, but this can be easily reverted, and was probably something that I should have brought to the attention of the dev list before I did that (sorry about that). In any case, I think 1.0.0 makes a lot of sense, politically, and software wise. Nutch is production quality software (we use it in production environments here at JPL), and deserves to have a 1.0.0 release...
My 2 cents, Chris On 3/28/07 11:38 AM, "Andrzej Bialecki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I know it's a trivial issue, but still ... When this release is out, I > propose that we should name the next release 1.0.0, and not 0.10.0. The > effect is purely psychological, but it also reflects our confidence in > the platform. > > Many Open Source projects are afraid of going to 1.0.0 and seem to be > unable to ever reach this level, as if it were a magic step beyond which > they are obliged to make some implied but unjustified promises ... > Perhaps it's because in the commercial world everyone knows what a 1.0.0 > release means :) The downside of the version numbering that never > reaches 1.0.0 is that casual users don't know how usable the software is > - e.g. Nutch 0.10.0 could possibly mean that there are still 90 releases > to go before it becomes usable. > > Therefore I propose the following: > > * shorten the release cycle, so that we can make a release at least once > every quarter. This was discussed before, and I hope we can make it > happen, especially with the help of new forces that joined the team ;) > > * call the next version 1.0.0, and continue in increments of 0.1.0 for > each bi-monhtly or quarterly release, > > * make critical bugfix / maintenance releases using increments of 0.0.1 > - although the need for such would be greatly diminished with the > shorter release cycle. > > * once we arrive at versions greater than x.5.0 we should plan for a big > release (increment of 1.0.0). > > * we should use only single digits for small increments, i.e. limit them > to values between 0-9. > > What do you think? >
