Dain Sundstrom wrote: > On Aug 7, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > >>> What's wrong w/ milestone naming conventions? >> >> I'm not a fan. >> >> 1.0-M1, 1.0-M2, 1.0-M3... >> >> is really misleading, IMO, as they give a sense of it being ready to go >> 1.0.... > > I'd prefer to use a stable (i.e., not automatically updated snapshot) > version to work with.
So would we. Just something would be better than nothing. > Also I really like the milestone numbering and > don't think it implies being ready. It is just a milestone on a journey. Each to his own. I think that the version number should be a hint. If yoko is that mature that calling it 1.0 is a good idea, that's great. I know that with Geronimo, we made the mistake of calling the basic kernel "1.0-M1", which really confused people since it was only a display of the architectural ideas, and not a 1.0 candidate. > > BTW I also feel that yoko is quite close to being 1.0 complete... not > that you need to be for a milestone :) > > -dain > >
