On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/02/2014 09:59 PM, Chuck Rolke wrote: > >> I feel like for qpidd and qpid::messaging at least, a '1.0' at this >>> point is meaningless and even perhaps confusing. They are both well past >>> that really, placing a high priority on stability and backward >>> compatibility. The 1.0 label to me is more appropriate for newer >>> components like proton, dispatch-router and the new JMS client. >>> >> >> There's a certain appeal to having the version number be the year.month >> that the product was branched especially if we have four or five >> closely related products. If some whizzy feature of the broker >> is released in 15.4 then you know that it probably isn't supported in >> dispatch 15.2. There's no way to know that if the broker is 3.2 and >> dispatch is 1.1. >> > > Yes, I can see the value in being able to easily determine ordering > between release numbers of components on different schedules. Also, it may > help force a more public schedule, by setting the target date in order to > determine the next release number.
I like the idea, but I think it would be "unstable". During the release process, we'd have to talk about 15.next or something like that because it's too hard to know exactly which month we will finish. "3.2" would be easier to talk about with precision.
