On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Henning P. Schmiedehausen < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Boston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Any comments ? > > Folks, I might be late to the show (the whole discussion seems to be > happening on Nov 20th inside a few hours [1]), but please: > > This versioning scheme (along the spec) is bad. Shindig will be > considered "not ready" by not hitting a 1.x version. > > By that arguing, the Apache Webserver would be at > 1.1-<some-large-number>. What if you want to rearchitect the internal > code of Shindig and need to reflect that in a version number? > 0.8.1-2.1 ? > > One of the most frequent questions on the list in the future will be > "where is version 0.8.0?", closely followed by "where is version > 1.0.0?" > > You basically tie the version cycle of the software to the version > cycle of the spec. My argument exactly. > > > Please, use apr versioning (or linux versioning or whatever three > digit versioning is considered these days) and start with a sane > (e.g. 1.0.0) version. > > >Happy with the version numbers ? > > No, not at all. I am -1 on the 0.8.1 naming shebang. Let's see if that > count for something here. > > Ciao > Henning > > -- > -- > Henning P. Schmiedehausen - Palo Alto, California, U.S.A. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] "We're Germans and we use Unix. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's a combination of two demographic groups > known to have no sense of humour whatsoever." > -- Hanno Mueller, de.comp.os.unix.programming >
