Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If it's ready for wide scale deployment, I wonder why the team decided against signaling that by calling it 1.0 instead of 0.6.1. A version number < 1 makes me think the developers still think it's pre-release quality. That may not be the case here, but it makes me wonder.



I'm not part of zfs on linux, I just looked at their github milestones[1]. It looks like they're reserving the 1.0 version for when it's "Fully functional and feature complete native ZFS implementation for Linux." Right now it's just usable and stable. Their previous milestones are also interesting. v0.6.0 had several RCs before being released as stable.[2]

[1]: https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/milestones

[2]: https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/milestones?state=cl...


No, I can assure you we definitely do not think it's "pre-release" quality. I work closely with Brian Behlendorf, and I'm sure he would not have made the stable release if he thought it wasn't ready for prime time.

It's a little disheartening to see people pay so much attention to a fictitious number, which really has no regard to the actual state of the code/project. Whether v1.0 or v0.1 was used, the quality of the release would not differ any.


We can't easily know the state of the code, but we can easily read the number that you have assigned it. That number should reflect your own assessment of the code's stability.

It's also a matter of how much cognitive load you want to impose on your users. We use dozens of different open-source packeages, each with its own version number. Can you really expect us to keep track of all of them? "Which Linux ZFS release was the first stable one?" "Uh, I think it was 0.6 something, or maybe 0.5.1?"

Don't do that to your users. Call it 1.0.0.


> We can't easily know the state of the code, but we can easily read the number that you have assigned it.

Exactly. To those who have been using 0.6.0_rc*, version 0.6.1 conveys the meaning "go ahead and upgrade, here's the stable release with no backward compatibility issue".

You will get your version 1.0 after several pre-1.0 RC releases. That's the proper release management.


It's a little disheartening to see people pay so much attention to a fictitious number

So, rather than adapt to people everywhere and call it v1.0, let's be a little sad that calling it 0.6.1 doesn't have the same effect, and then leave it the way that it is, and complain about how irrational people are?

Or...

I know, let's make a new release of v0.6.1 called...wait for it...v1.0. And then we can move on to real issues, not fake controversy.

The adage "pick your battles" comes to mind....


My thoughts exactly. If you're going to declare something production ready, but don't have the nuts to call it 1.0, I don't believe you.

Maybe 0.6.1 just has a nice ring that 1.0 doesn't quite get.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: