Mark Wielaard wrote: > - Decide on the version number. > We had a very small/brief discussion about this during Fosdem. > Everybody seems to agree 0.x really doesn't do justice to the maturity > we have reached over the years. And it is really hard to define when > we hit "1.0". So the proposal is to keep using a "sequence version > number". Either just drop the "0." and make the next release-number > classpath-21, or adopt a year.month style version number and make the > next version number classpath-6.3 for the March 2006 release. > In either case we will just use a code name for a release that has > some special feature set that we are proud of, but we will always > just increase the release snapshot number. Suggestions or Opinions? Opinion requested, here granted :-) Changes in version number format, etc. have a cost in that can confuse (or at least complicate) packaging and versioning software like RPM, FreeBSD ports, etc. not to mention consumers (i.e., users). If all we want is a sequence numbering, then 0.xx has been working fine so why change it? If we want to be prouder, let's just release 1.0 and be done with it. Surely 1.0.1, 1.1, 1.2, etc will shortly follow and the whole grandness of "1.0" will fade quickly. So I vote either keeping the status quo, or releasing 1.0. A "classpath-6.3" seems to be the worst of both worlds. Not a big deal really, but that's my $0.02 anyway... -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com
