Michael Koch wrote: >On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:36:37PM +0000, Chris Burdess wrote: > > >>>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. >>> >>> >>I agree with the above but my preference would be for "1.4.x". We are >>at about 99% of 1.4 API coverage, and we have many features that >>weren't shipped by Sun until 1.5. When we are in the same situation >>with respect to 1.5, we should call ourselves 1.5.x and so forth. >>This makes the situation much more clear to casual users as to what >>they can expect in terms of features. >> >> > >Full ACK. This really makes sense. > >Cheers, >Michael > > Suggest making next release 0.90 and incrementing towards 1.0. The 1.0 release should be 1.4.0 (or 1.40 if you were going to be consistent, but I digress). Anyway my $0.02. Brian
