On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Timothy Farrell wrote: >> For a production system, I'm more interested in stability than performance. >> And despite the admitted arbitrariness of version-numbering choices, it's >> hard to make the case to management that moving to an 0.x server is safe. >> >> What do *you* mean by labeling Rocket 0.x? >> > > That's a fair question. When I started, I had a certain set of features and > goals that I planned to reach. Upon finishing all of those features and > goal, there would be a 1.0 release. Since starting at least three of these > goals have fallen by the wayside due to their improbability or lack of > flexibility withing Python or the WSGI specification. > > In the end, I'll probably skip a few 0.x releases and go straight to 1.0 > whenever I feel that there are enough of the features I originally set out to > include. > > Like web2py, I strive to make every announced/released version stable enough > to include in a project. I've been running web2py on different versions of > Rocket for several months now.
I suppose I'm repeating myself, but so be it. For that kind of situation, I think it's helpful for everyone to communicate stability by releasing 1.0, and (depending on your numbering philosophy) bug fixes with 1.0.x, significant feature additions with 1.x, and (especially incompatible) API changes with 2.0. Or some such. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en.
