On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 19:20 -0800, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > -0 > > > > I've said it elsewhere, but the only reason to fuss about a 1.0, is > > that it is loaded with special meaning. > > Right: that's what we should be doing. Up to and including the start > of 0.6 you almost had to have a committer on staff to run Cassandra in > production. That's much less true at the end of 0.6 and the start of > 0.7. (As Paul says, I think we could have legitimately called 0.7, > 1.0, but better late than never.)
As we've already seen in this thread, your criteria for a 1.0 isn't universally accepted, and neither is your assessment that Cassandra meets it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that your criteria is incorrect. I'm saying that "1.0" has a special yet different meaning for everyone. Christening a 1.0 will send a message, and many will receive the wrong one. It's also worth pointing out that dev@ is a pretty narrow audience, I'm guessing we'll see even greater variation elsewhere. > > I'd rather drop the leading the 0 and continue to number releases > > sequentially the way we have. If our < 1 versioning is signaling a > lack > > of readiness, and if >= 1 is a necessary gate, then 8.0 should work > > equally as well. Better in fact, 8 times better! > > This defeats the purpose of changing the numbering, since by calling > it 8.0 you're saying "all those other major releases we did were just > as > 1.0 production ready as this one," so you're signaling nothing at > all. Which I think was your somewhat cynical point. :) It would be my intention to say, "the 0 never meant anything", and "this is our 8th release", which I think is better than saying, "this is our first release". FWIW, the other suggestions (date-based versions like 2011.01, etc), work equally as well for me. :) -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com
