I like the idea of releasing 0.x versions. A good example is [csv]. I would have no problem with releasing the current trunk as 0.9. At the moment [csv] is just another component we don't releaese because we want to come up with a perfect API (and I take responsibility for that :-)
Benedikt Send from my mobile device > Am 10.10.2013 um 12:15 schrieb Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@scalaris.com>: > > Hi, > > Ate Douma wrote: > >>> On 10/10/2013 12:24 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote: >>> Every now and then I keep getting requests via private mail asking to >>> release javaflow as it seems to be working for people. Yet I know there >>> is still so much essential stuff to fix for a 1.0 release. >>> >>> Crossing over to the other thread: I know on github I would made a 0.x >>> release already ages ago but knowing I won't have time to work on it >>> anymore I keep pushing this out at commons. >> >> Wouldn't this be a case to allow and use intermediate milestone releases? >> >> Using a 1.0-Mxx version would make still clear to the users things haven't >> settled yet (API wise), so should not limit or restrict making API changes >> before a final 1.0 release, but would help both the community and the >> project moving. More likely to incite further involvement and >> contributions, etc. >> >> Being 'stuck' on getting a (final) 1.0 release out because everything >> should be settled and 'frozen' (API wise) first doesn't make sense to me >> at all. > > We should not be so afraid to switch to 2.x if the 1.x API turns out to be > cumbersome in some cases. Typically you may also increase Java level in the > meantime and therefore eventually even have a benefit of new possibilities. > >> "Release early and often" really is what keeps open source projects moving >> forward, *any* policy which blocks that is plain wrong and should be >> fixed. >> >> Note: I'm not saying I'm against the strict versioning rules, but those >> should NOT block getting to a 1.0 release easily. >> And I don't think they do. Isn't this where Milestone releases are meant >> for? > > I am not a big fan of milestones unless we really have a forced schedule for > the final release. If we get into the situation that the milestone is the > latest release for months, we get into jar hell again, because that > milestone is then *used* like any proper release. You cannot prevent this. > > There is a reason why I have to use for a (private) Maven plugin an artifact > like org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-container-default:jar:1.0-alpha-9-stable-1. > That's a result of such a "milestone" and I really like to avoid this > situation for Apache Commons. > >>> Release and put into dormant? >>> It's a strange situation. > > No release it as 1.0 and go on with 2.x, since 1.0 is probably already based > on old technology. > > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
