qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Ross <justin.r...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Any ETA on a QPid 0.32 release
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:02:59 GMT
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 12/02/2014 09:59 PM, Chuck Rolke wrote:
>> I feel like for qpidd and qpid::messaging at least, a '1.0' at this
>>> point is meaningless and even perhaps confusing. They are both well past
>>> that really, placing a high priority on stability and backward
>>> compatibility. The 1.0 label to me is more appropriate for newer
>>> components like proton, dispatch-router and the new JMS client.
>> There's a certain appeal to having the version number be the year.month
>> that the product was branched especially if we have four or five
>> closely related products. If some whizzy feature of the broker
>> is released in 15.4 then you know that it probably isn't supported in
>> dispatch 15.2. There's no way to know that if the broker is 3.2 and
>> dispatch is 1.1.
> Yes, I can see the value in being able to easily determine ordering
> between release numbers of components on different schedules. Also, it may
> help force a more public schedule, by setting the target date in order to
> determine the next release number.

I like the idea, but I think it would be "unstable".  During the release
process, we'd have to talk about 15.next or something like that because
it's too hard to know exactly which month we will finish.  "3.2" would be
easier to talk about with precision.

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