incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release planning
Date Thu, 30 May 2013 20:05:45 GMT
0.4 is fine with me


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:

> I agree that 1.0 would give the wrong message. Some <1.0 version is
> right.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013, at 08:49 PM, Ali Lown wrote:
> > >> Blockers:
> > >> What version number should this be? The code is making reference to
> > >> waveinabox 0.3. (Was 0.1, 0.2 ever released?). If we use 0.4 as our
> > >> first Apache Release does this seem sensible? (To avoid the problems
> > >> of ending up with repeated numbers in a few releases time).
> > >>
> > >
> > > Does it make sense to use semantic versioning, e.g. start with v1.0.0
> and
> > > then increase numbers apropriately? (following http://semver.org/guideline)
> > > I wouldn't be afraid to call this v1.0, it may even be beneficial if
> that
> > > atracts people to the project, which is precisely what we need the
> most IMO.
> >
> > A 1.0 is normally assumed to be quite stable. (In my experience, Wave
> > is still not there yet), hence I think 0.4 (being > 0.3 to prevent
> > confusion), but <1.0 is a reasonable starting point for the Apache
> > releases.
> >
> > Unless I hear a preference from _the other committers/PMC_ within the
> > next 24h, I will go ahead and branch, make changelogs, release-notes
> > and tag.
> >
> > @Michael: Once tagged tomorrow, am I definitely leaving it to you to
> > compile+sign+post vote emails? I think it would be best to keep this
> > fast pace going and have the vote mails sent by (at latest) next
> > Wednesday. (Given we seem to have lots of discussion of where to go
> > after this release). Is that ok with you?
> >
> > Ali
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message