[nanomsg] Re: Status
- From: Paul Colomiets <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 23:27:19 +0200
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> And on a side note, if we stick to having a package version, that would
>> be
>> nice to bump to 1.x.
>> Labels like "0.3-beta" tend to trick users into thinking this is some kind
>> of unstable toy library, which is not really the case. The library works
>> well for its defined set of features, there is no major flow, so no need
>> to
>> play small in that numbering.
>>
>
> Maybe I have been over-cautious with the version numbering. If people
> generally feel OK with moving to 1.0, it can be done on the next release.
>
I don't think it's ok, to name current state of nanomsg as 1.0. Since,
honestly, it often crashes on start (most often is when run under strace).
There are also few critical bugs in the tracker. So, please be patient.
--
Paul
Other related posts:
