Hi Gwen, I certainly think 0.9.0 is better than 0.8.3. As regards semantic versioning, do we have a plan for a 1.0 release? IIUC, compatibility rules don't really apply for pre-1.0 stuff. I'd argue that Kafka already qualifies for 1.x.
Aditya On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > We've been rather messy about this in the past, but I'm hoping to converge > toward semantic versioning: http://semver.org/ > > 0.9.0 will fit since we are adding new functionality in backward compatible > manner. > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Gwen, > > > > What's the expected meaning of the individual digits of the version for > > this community? Could you give me some insight here? > > > > -Flavio > > > > > On 08 Sep 2015, at 18:19, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Kafka Fans, > > > > > > What do you think of making the next release (the one with security, > new > > > consumer, quotas, etc) a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.3? > > > > > > It has lots of new features, and new consumer was pretty much scoped > for > > > 0.9.0, so it matches our original roadmap. I feel that so many awesome > > > features deserve a better release number. > > > > > > The downside is mainly some confusion (we refer to 0.8.3 in bunch of > > > places), and noisy emails from JIRA while we change "fix version" field > > > everywhere. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > >
