Re: release of commons-imaging

Yes: M is for milestone.

Gary

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024, 10:40 AM Bruno Kinoshita <[email protected]>
wrote:

> >
> > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme
> > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that
> > compatibility
> > can be broken)?
>
>
> Sounds good to me too, at least users wouldn't expect any difference seeing
> a new alphaN+1 announced. But not sure if there won't be any differences
> with a milestone release (M is for milestone, right?)
>
> Cheers
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 16:11, Gilles Sadowski <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Le mer. 28 févr. 2024 à 16:00, Bruno Kinoshita
> > <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > >
> > > Hi Gary,
> > >
> > > What would be the main difference between the alpha and M1 releases?
> > >
> > > I am not 100% confident that we have the public and protected API
> right,
> > > > specifically we might have too much public and protected. YMMV.
> > >
> > >
> > > Agreed, and I think if we are to release anything, we would need one or
> > > more extra releases before we get everything right for the 1.0. But if
> we
> > > can continue breaking backward compatibility (even though we will try
> > that
> > > to only what's necessary to reduce impact to users) with M1/M2/M3, the
> > same
> > > way we did with the alpha releases, then I'm +1 for that already.
> >
> > Why not continue with experimental releases using the same scheme
> > (i.e. "alpha", then "beta") with the agreed on semantics (that
> > compatibility
> > can be broken)?
> >
> > > > > [...]
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >
> >
>