|[paho-dev] Paho 1.1 Release - Versions (?!?)|
First of all, thanks a lot to everyone who contributed to the Paho 1.1 release, awesome work!
I don’t know if this was already addressed, but the versioning of the single parts of Paho is very confusing - at least for me. From the release notes for the Paho 1.1 release from :
I know it’s pretty tough to find a consistent version numbering for all libraries, especially since they can have different development speeds. From my point of view and from the feedback I had from other people, it’s extremely confusing for any end-user who is not interested in all details and sub-libraries of Paho, that the Paho Release 1.1 contains Java Paho 1.0.2. In fact, this is not really obvious from the current Paho web site which version to use.
I have two possible competing suggestions for version numbering and the release-“train”:
1. Name the Paho Release “Train”, not with numbers but with names. That would mean Paho does not use any version numbering for scheduled releases but let’s say it’s named "Q1/2015 release” or “Mars release" or even give some funny names like the Linux kernel guys do. But don’t use version numbers which do not match with the sub-libraries in the umbrella release. In this case, each library can have it’s own version numbering. It’s very important to have a table available with all concrete version numbers on the website and in the release notes, otherwise it’s still too hard for people figuring out the right versions.
One general suggestions: Please add the current version numbering for each library to the Paho main page. It’s not always obvious what the current version of each library is.
Does any of these suggestions make sense to you? From my point of view any of these suggestions would greatly help increase usability and reduce confusion for users. Also, this may help to reduce the fragmentation of the Paho libraries (there are e.g. many 0.4.0 Paho users out there who don’t even know they have a very outdated version).
Hope I didn’t come too late for this discussion - if it was already discussed some other time, I apologize for bringing it back on the table. This is a very serious and important usability issue for end users in my opinion, though.
Back to the top