We could go the Microsoft route and call it Apache Cassandra 2011, or the Ubuntu route and call it Apache Cassandra 11.08 (or whatever month the release occurs in). The number itself is relatively unimportant.
I believe what Jonathan is proposing is a change to something that implies a level of stability and production readiness, rather than the 0.x series, which traditionally denotes software not yet ready for the wider world. While I generally agree that the next release should be indicated as ready for the world, I'd like to see the project's documentation updated; even if it's just a mirror of the Riptano docs. In order to indicate that the release is ready for the general public we need to have the resources readily available to help them figure out what Cassandra is and how to use Cassandra properly. To summarise: +0.5 Regards, Nick Telford On 13 January 2011 14:14, Tim Estes <tim.es...@digitalreasoning.com> wrote: > Speaking more for an organization that works with a lot of external parties > using Cassandra (that don't necessarily develop on it), I think the pivot to > 1.0 makes better sense. A lot of the world is still coming to know Cassandra > vs. any other NoSQL type solution. In that environment, I think the > production grade validation is important. > > to the point below... I'd submit that sometimes you jump for 8.0 to 10.0. > Then we just move the decimal. > > Really- I'm sure that groups can make the shift and get it. > > +1 to Jonathan's original suggestion. > > -- > Tim Estes > CEO > Digital Reasoning Systems > > > > On Jan 13, 2011, at 1:58 AM, Daniel Lundin wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com> > wrote: > >> 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! > > > > +1 for semantic versioning <http://semver.org/>. > > > > It may not be perfect (whatever that means) but at least it has a > > common, [well] defined meaning. > > > > As for `due diligence`, that's a fine codename for the next release. :) > >
