You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> on 2009/02/09 20:20:23 UTC
[VOTE] Version Numbers
After much lengthy debate, cast your vote now please:
[ ] 0.5 style
[ ] 1.5 style
I'm starting to have dreams about version numbers.
Marnie
Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Robert Greig <ro...@gmail.com>.
2009/2/10 Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>:
> I *really* don't want to label Qpid as v0.x because I think that
> undermines the maturity that is present in the current product (you
> may even know some people releasing commercial product off the back of
> it ;-) )... However if you force me to vote now on a non M scheme I
> would have to vote for 0.x. That would also imply that the next major
> release would be 1.0. I actually think that when the time comes to
> move to a full X.0 release we should start at something like v3.0
> since there are at least two earlier stable baselines that people may
> be currently using.
This is a general comment on replies in various threads on this topic;
I think that we should recognise that 1.0 isn't in many people's eyes
an indication of superb quality or maturity - in fact I know some
people who won't touch anything that does not have at least 3.0. So I
don't think we should be too idealistic in what we want to see before
moving to an X.0 scheme.
I can certainly see the importance of having interop between our
components (clearly) but I am still not entirely convinced it directly
influences the numbering. From our users' perspective it matters not
one jot whether we call the next release M5 or 1.5 - the interop is
still the same.
If we decide to keep the existing scheme or go for 0.x, do we have
people able to work on 0-10 protocol support for the Java broker?
Would that decision change our scope for the next release so that work
on 0-10 support for the Java broker would commence sooner?
RG
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
>
> is graduatation not a good enough reason,
As per Aidan's earlier comment it seems like graduation and the
milestone numbering scheme should not be erroneously linked.
> and that everyone wants to get rid of it?
>
I see this situation as akin to the vote on the Monarchy in
Australia... The majority agrees that the current situation is
anachronistic and wrong, but people have not yet come to a settled
majority verdict on what it should be replaced it with.
I *really* don't want to label Qpid as v0.x because I think that
undermines the maturity that is present in the current product (you
may even know some people releasing commercial product off the back of
it ;-) )... However if you force me to vote now on a non M scheme I
would have to vote for 0.x. That would also imply that the next major
release would be 1.0. I actually think that when the time comes to
move to a full X.0 release we should start at something like v3.0
since there are at least two earlier stable baselines that people may
be currently using.
At the end of the day if the majority want to move to 0.5 or 1.5 now,
I'm happy to abide by that decision - but I think that in the
interests of democracy it is wrong to exclude "No change" from the
current vote.
-- Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
Robert Godfrey wrote:
> 2009/2/10 Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>:
>
>>> Can I ask that either we add a "No Change Just Yet" option to this
>>> vote, or cancel this vote in favour of first establishing that the
>>> majority this that *now* is the correct time to change.
>>>
>>> While I can live with a 0.5 release I think that we are doing
>>> ourselves a disservice if we do not wait the one or so extra releases
>>> that would bring us up to interoperability between all the components
>>> and the chance to move to an X.0 release number (X to be determined).
>>>
>>>
>> Rob,
>>
>> The 'M' is a PAIN to deal with on the C++ side, with the tool chain. Are you
>> ok doing 0.5 now
>> and 1.0 once we have interop over 0-10 with the Java broker?
>>
>> Carl.
>>
>
> The M is certainly a pain in many ways... And I would dearly love to
> be rid of it. I just think that there is nothing compelling and new
> that means we should do it now, rather than putting together a plan
> for what an X.0 release would mean, doing that and the rewarding
> ourselves with an X.0 release at the end of the process.
>
> I could certainly live with an 0.5 scheme, but I do feel that if we
> call a vote we should include all the options people have put forward.
> I also feel that when we come to numbering an X.0 release the X may
> not be 1. Almost all the components of Qpid are individually at a
> greater level of maturity than 0.5 would signify. If we bring
> everything up to the same level and have them interoperate I think we
> can reflect that.
>
is graduatation not a good enough reason, and that everyone wants to get
rid of it?
Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
2009/2/10 Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>:
>
>> Can I ask that either we add a "No Change Just Yet" option to this
>> vote, or cancel this vote in favour of first establishing that the
>> majority this that *now* is the correct time to change.
>>
>> While I can live with a 0.5 release I think that we are doing
>> ourselves a disservice if we do not wait the one or so extra releases
>> that would bring us up to interoperability between all the components
>> and the chance to move to an X.0 release number (X to be determined).
>>
>
> Rob,
>
> The 'M' is a PAIN to deal with on the C++ side, with the tool chain. Are you
> ok doing 0.5 now
> and 1.0 once we have interop over 0-10 with the Java broker?
>
> Carl.
The M is certainly a pain in many ways... And I would dearly love to
be rid of it. I just think that there is nothing compelling and new
that means we should do it now, rather than putting together a plan
for what an X.0 release would mean, doing that and the rewarding
ourselves with an X.0 release at the end of the process.
I could certainly live with an 0.5 scheme, but I do feel that if we
call a vote we should include all the options people have put forward.
I also feel that when we come to numbering an X.0 release the X may
not be 1. Almost all the components of Qpid are individually at a
greater level of maturity than 0.5 would signify. If we bring
everything up to the same level and have them interoperate I think we
can reflect that.
-- Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
> Can I ask that either we add a "No Change Just Yet" option to this
> vote, or cancel this vote in favour of first establishing that the
> majority this that *now* is the correct time to change.
>
> While I can live with a 0.5 release I think that we are doing
> ourselves a disservice if we do not wait the one or so extra releases
> that would bring us up to interoperability between all the components
> and the chance to move to an X.0 release number (X to be determined).
>
Rob,
The 'M' is a PAIN to deal with on the C++ side, with the tool chain. Are
you ok doing 0.5 now
and 1.0 once we have interop over 0-10 with the Java broker?
Carl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
2009/2/10 Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>:
> Rob,
>
> I seized the moment and started a vote thread. Carl had already tried to
> bring this debate to a vote ...
>
> You could start your own alternative vote thread - anyone could have started
> the vote here, and provide the options you'd like us to vote on. Please do
> so if you'd like.
>
> From my pov, graduation does seem to bring with it the ideal that we're no
> longer releasing milestones.
>
> Truly though, I'd just like a decision.
It seems to me though that this is a "When did you stop beating your
wife?" question. It is based on a false premise (or at least on one
which has not yet been demonstrated to be true) - that the project has
reached some sort of consensus that *now* is the time to change the
numbering scheme.
It seems inappropriate to have a vote on what type of change we should
make without either first voting on the need (or timing) of the
change; or offering "no change" as an option.
Having two competing Vote threads makes no sense as they could lead to
contradictory results.
Can I ask that either we add a "No Change Just Yet" option to this
vote, or cancel this vote in favour of first establishing that the
majority this that *now* is the correct time to change.
While I can live with a 0.5 release I think that we are doing
ourselves a disservice if we do not wait the one or so extra releases
that would bring us up to interoperability between all the components
and the chance to move to an X.0 release number (X to be determined).
-- Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>.
Rob,
I seized the moment and started a vote thread. Carl had already tried to
bring this debate to a vote ...
You could start your own alternative vote thread - anyone could have started
the vote here, and provide the options you'd like us to vote on. Please do
so if you'd like.
>From my pov, graduation does seem to bring with it the ideal that we're no
longer releasing milestones.
Truly though, I'd just like a decision.
Marnie
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'd rather stay on M5 and work towards a release which can be > 1.0
>
> Why wasn't this offered as an option - I know at least one other
> person wanted that on the list?
>
> -- Rob
>
> 2009/2/9 Robert Greig <ro...@gmail.com>:
> > [ ] 0.5 style
> > [X] 1.5 style
> >
> > RG
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> > Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Robert Greig <ro...@gmail.com>.
2009/2/9 Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>:
> I'd rather stay on M5 and work towards a release which can be > 1.0
I think it would be good to have a discussion - hopefully leading to
consensus (!) - on what people think we need to have achieved to merit
a 1.x release. To my mind, if people agree those items and they are
different from what is in scope in our next release, that implies we
don't have the correct focus for our next release(s).
> Why wasn't this offered as an option - I know at least one other
> person wanted that on the list?
I think the status quo should be offered as an option. If I understand
correctly, people wanting the status quo are not arguing that it is
the ideal version numbering scheme, but that there are issues that
prevent us moving to a more sensible scheme at the moment?
My own view is that Mx is a weak numbering scheme - something I have
always felt and I have no idea why incubator projects have to be
numbered (or should I say encumbered) in such a way. I am not sure
what "milestone" means in that context - is a milestone not a stage on
the way to a clearly defined goal? Irrespective of which features or
project changes we need to have in future releases, moving to a very
boring, standard release numbering convention would be a welcome move
for our (potential) users.
I also seem to recall that some people brought up the point a while
ago that certain unix package systems (e.g. rpm) only work with an
x.y.z release numbering scheme, so we already have some use of an
alternative scheme (or am I mistaken)?
RG
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
I'd rather stay on M5 and work towards a release which can be > 1.0
Why wasn't this offered as an option - I know at least one other
person wanted that on the list?
-- Rob
2009/2/9 Robert Greig <ro...@gmail.com>:
> [ ] 0.5 style
> [X] 1.5 style
>
> RG
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Robert Greig <ro...@gmail.com>.
[ ] 0.5 style
[X] 1.5 style
RG
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Marnie McCormack
<ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> After much lengthy debate, cast your vote now please:
>
> [] 0.5 style
> [ ] 1.5 style
I am +1 for 0.5
> I'm starting to have dreams about version numbers.
Are you sure you meant to use the word dream?
- Aidan
--
Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing
http://qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
I am +1 for 0.5
Regards,
Rajith
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com> wrote:
> [X] 0.5 style
> [ ] 1.5 style
>
> -Steve
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Rajith Attapattu
Red Hat
http://rajith.2rlabs.com/
RE: [VOTE] Version Numbers
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
[X] 0.5 style
[ ] 1.5 style
-Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org