Option 2. I never really got far enough with 3.0 since I couldn't see a forward path from 2.1 to 3.0 to 4.0.
Joshua On Nov 7, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Martin Sustrik <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It's up to Pieter whether he wants to maintain 3-0 further. >> Pieter, what do you think? > > /me was expecting this to bounce back to me. I'm going to bounce this > back to the community since the only rationale for maintaining a > version is that there are people who need that version. > > So let's take a vote. These are the options I can see, please choose > one and argue / vent as you like: > > Option 1: maintain 3.0 through to stable, eventually deprecate 2.1 and > then start packaging 3.1 as alpha. Pros: it's consistent and gives the > impression we know what we're doing. Cons: it's insane because 3.1 > speaks its own wire protocol incompatible with previous and following > versions. > > Option 2: deprecate 3.0 now, and start packaging 3.1 as alpha. Since > it's wire compatible with 2.1, people can test it immediately and we > should be able to push it through to maturity rapidly. Pros: simplest. > Cons: anyone using 3.0 in real life is kind of screwed. > > Option 3: remove labels from 3.0 and make it wire-compatible with 2.1 > and 3.1. Continue with current release planning. Pros: gives us the > release story we should have had from the start IMO. Cons: not sure if > it's even possible. > > -Pieter > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
