Based on the new feature in next release, 0.9 looks reasonable. There might be some other things worth thinking about. Although we have a lot of new feature added, many of them are actually either still in development or not well tested yet. For example, for security features, only SSL is done and tested. New consumer API might still subject to changes. In that case. If we release 0.9 now, we might need a lot of 0.9.x.x version to fix bugs and change APIs later. I thought the original plan was to let 0.8.3 to have both new and old consumer and remove the old consumer in 0.9.
If we don't have any stability guarantee for versions, I think either way is fine. But I feel slightly better to have a transitional version 0.8.3. It might give us some room to test and stabilize. Thanks, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin 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? > > > > >
