Yes: M is for milestone. Gary
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 10:40 AM Bruno Kinoshita <brunodepau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > > compatibility > > can be broken)? > > > Sounds good to me too, at least users wouldn't expect any difference seeing > a new alphaN+1 announced. But not sure if there won't be any differences > with a milestone release (M is for milestone, right?) > > Cheers > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 16:11, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 16:00, Bruno Kinoshita > > <brunodepau...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > > > What would be the main difference between the alpha and M1 releases? > > > > > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API > right, > > > > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV. > > > > > > > > > Agreed, and I think if we are to release anything, we would need one or > > > more extra releases before we get everything right for the 1.0. But if > we > > > can continue breaking backward compatibility (even though we will try > > that > > > to only what's necessary to reduce impact to users) with M1/M2/M3, the > > same > > > way we did with the alpha releases, then I'm +1 for that already. > > > > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme > > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that > > compatibility > > can be broken)? > > > > > > > [...] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > >
