I'm not sure if the complications surrounding the versioning of the drivers should be factored into the releases of Cassandra. I think that 3.0 signals a massive change and calling the release containing 8099 a .1 would be drastically underplaying how big of a release it is - from the perspective of the end user it would be a disservice.
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 2:09 PM Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > I do like 2.2 and 3.0 over 3.0 and 3.1 because going from 2.x to 3.x > signals that 8099 really is a big change. > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Alex Popescu <al...@datastax.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > > > > > Instead of labeling it 2.2, I’d like to propose to label it 3.0 (so > > > basically just move 8099 to 3.1). > > > In the end it’s ”only a label”. But there are a lot of new user-facing > > > features in it that justifies a major release. > > > > > > > +1 on labeling the proposed 2.2 as 3.0 and moving (8099 to 3.1) > > > > 1. Tons of new features that feel more than just a 2.2 > > 2. The majority of features planned for 3.0 are actually ready for this > > version > > 3. in order to avoid compatiblity questions (and version compatibility > > matrices), the drivers developed by DataStax have > > followed the Cassandra versions so far. The Python and C# drivers are > > already at 2.5 as they added some major features. > > > > Renaming the proposed 2.2 as 3.0 would allow us to continue to use > this > > versioning policy until all drivers are supporting > > the latest Cassandra version and continue to not require a user to > check > > a compatibility matrix. > > > > > > -- > > Bests, > > > > Alex Popescu | @al3xandru > > Sen. Product Manager @ DataStax > > > > > > -- > Jonathan Ellis > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > @spyced >
