You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geode.apache.org by Greg Chase <gr...@gregchase.com> on 2016/01/09 00:16:05 UTC
How are we numbering the first release of Apache Geode?
Greetings community,
Whether it was a typo or intended, I've seen some recent discrepancies in
how we are "numbering" the first release of Apache Geode.
Given that this software has a long commercial heritage that previously
ended in version 8.x, I could see we might choose to label it "9.0" given
the major platform changes that have occurred.
However, I totally understand if its numbered "0.x" or "1.x Alpha" since
this is its first release as an Apache project.
Personally, I'd like to see a "9.0 Alpha" since this software is some
serious stuff solving some major problems in its prior ownership model.
-Greg
Re: How are we numbering the first release of Apache Geode?
Posted by Nitin Lamba <ni...@ampool.io>.
Just to close this - based on the related versioning thread, is the community in agreement with the upcoming release as 1.0.0-incubating.M1? Or do we need a formal vote on this?
Thanks,
Nitin
________________________________________
From: Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 7:48 PM
To: dev@geode.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: How are we numbering the first release of Apache Geode?
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I think it’s confusing to start with 9.0 when the prior releases were a
> commercial product, not an open source project.
>
As a current Gemfire user, my preference would be for Geode 9 - especially
if the major version of future Gemfire versions are inline with the major
Geode version - I think thats less confusing.
For people new to Geode/Gemfire, I doubt they'll give it much thought.
Niall
> Groovy maintained its versioning pattern when it entered ASF but it has
> always been OSS and the prior versions are still available.
>
> YMMV,
> Anthony
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Greg Chase <gr...@gregchase.com> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings community,
> > Whether it was a typo or intended, I've seen some recent discrepancies in
> > how we are "numbering" the first release of Apache Geode.
> >
> > Given that this software has a long commercial heritage that previously
> > ended in version 8.x, I could see we might choose to label it "9.0"
> given
> > the major platform changes that have occurred.
> >
> > However, I totally understand if its numbered "0.x" or "1.x Alpha" since
> > this is its first release as an Apache project.
> >
> > Personally, I'd like to see a "9.0 Alpha" since this software is some
> > serious stuff solving some major problems in its prior ownership model.
> >
> > -Greg
>
>
Re: How are we numbering the first release of Apache Geode?
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I think it’s confusing to start with 9.0 when the prior releases were a
> commercial product, not an open source project.
>
As a current Gemfire user, my preference would be for Geode 9 - especially
if the major version of future Gemfire versions are inline with the major
Geode version - I think thats less confusing.
For people new to Geode/Gemfire, I doubt they'll give it much thought.
Niall
> Groovy maintained its versioning pattern when it entered ASF but it has
> always been OSS and the prior versions are still available.
>
> YMMV,
> Anthony
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Greg Chase <gr...@gregchase.com> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings community,
> > Whether it was a typo or intended, I've seen some recent discrepancies in
> > how we are "numbering" the first release of Apache Geode.
> >
> > Given that this software has a long commercial heritage that previously
> > ended in version 8.x, I could see we might choose to label it "9.0"
> given
> > the major platform changes that have occurred.
> >
> > However, I totally understand if its numbered "0.x" or "1.x Alpha" since
> > this is its first release as an Apache project.
> >
> > Personally, I'd like to see a "9.0 Alpha" since this software is some
> > serious stuff solving some major problems in its prior ownership model.
> >
> > -Greg
>
>
Re: How are we numbering the first release of Apache Geode?
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
I think it’s confusing to start with 9.0 when the prior releases were a commercial product, not an open source project.
Groovy maintained its versioning pattern when it entered ASF but it has always been OSS and the prior versions are still available.
YMMV,
Anthony
> On Jan 8, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Greg Chase <gr...@gregchase.com> wrote:
>
> Greetings community,
> Whether it was a typo or intended, I've seen some recent discrepancies in
> how we are "numbering" the first release of Apache Geode.
>
> Given that this software has a long commercial heritage that previously
> ended in version 8.x, I could see we might choose to label it "9.0" given
> the major platform changes that have occurred.
>
> However, I totally understand if its numbered "0.x" or "1.x Alpha" since
> this is its first release as an Apache project.
>
> Personally, I'd like to see a "9.0 Alpha" since this software is some
> serious stuff solving some major problems in its prior ownership model.
>
> -Greg