0.4 is fine with me
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Upayavira <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that 1.0 would give the wrong message. Some <1.0 version is > right. > > Upayavira > > On Thu, May 30, 2013, at 08:49 PM, Ali Lown wrote: > > >> Blockers: > > >> What version number should this be? The code is making reference to > > >> waveinabox 0.3. (Was 0.1, 0.2 ever released?). If we use 0.4 as our > > >> first Apache Release does this seem sensible? (To avoid the problems > > >> of ending up with repeated numbers in a few releases time). > > >> > > > > > > Does it make sense to use semantic versioning, e.g. start with v1.0.0 > and > > > then increase numbers apropriately? (following > > > http://semver.org/guideline) > > > I wouldn't be afraid to call this v1.0, it may even be beneficial if > that > > > atracts people to the project, which is precisely what we need the > most IMO. > > > > A 1.0 is normally assumed to be quite stable. (In my experience, Wave > > is still not there yet), hence I think 0.4 (being > 0.3 to prevent > > confusion), but <1.0 is a reasonable starting point for the Apache > > releases. > > > > Unless I hear a preference from _the other committers/PMC_ within the > > next 24h, I will go ahead and branch, make changelogs, release-notes > > and tag. > > > > @Michael: Once tagged tomorrow, am I definitely leaving it to you to > > compile+sign+post vote emails? I think it would be best to keep this > > fast pace going and have the vote mails sent by (at latest) next > > Wednesday. (Given we seem to have lots of discussion of where to go > > after this release). Is that ok with you? > > > > Ali >
