On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:54:41PM +0100, 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? I don't really like this approach. I think we should just do a 1.0 release when work for all applications written for Java 1.4. We will have regressions against Java 1.4 but these can be fixed in 1.1, 1.2 ... Or if you want a slower version inflation 1.0.1, 1.0.2, ... Using a year-based approach means nothing. Then we can use evil codenames like "wealthy walrus". Cheers, Michael -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/
