I don't know of any 1.0 plans. IMO, it makes sense to have 0.9.0 out first, and then discuss what it will take to get to 1.0. Does that make sense?
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Aditya Auradkar < aaurad...@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote: > 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? > > > > > > > > >
