Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cassandra-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 96394 invoked from network); 15 May 2009 13:53:51 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 May 2009 13:53:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 43562 invoked by uid 500); 15 May 2009 13:53:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cassandra-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 43547 invoked by uid 500); 15 May 2009 13:53:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cassandra-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 43537 invoked by uid 99); 15 May 2009 13:53:51 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 May 2009 13:53:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [207.97.245.181] (HELO smtp181.iad.emailsrvr.com) (207.97.245.181) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 May 2009 13:53:41 +0000 Received: from relay28.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay28.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1020F1B401C for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 09:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay28.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: eevans-AT-racklabs.com) with ESMTPSA id D246F1B4005 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 09:53:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Versioning scheme From: Eric Evans To: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org In-Reply-To: References: <4A0C5975.6010909@oskarsson.nu> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Rackspace Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:53:39 -0500 Message-Id: <1242395619.8355.1.camel@achilles> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 12:57 -0500, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > There's nothing in 0.3 that implies there won't be a 0.3.1. "Explicit is better than implicit" +1 for 0.3.0 :) -- Eric Evans eevans@rackspace.com