Friendly reminder... the EMO needs a clear +1 from any PMC member to indicate approval to proceed with the release and the corresponding review materials.
I think that the choice of version numbers is substantially your
choice, and we (I at least) are happy to go along with it.
There are some conventions which it's nice to follow, such as
graduating on a 1.0 release. Not all projects have followed these
conventions although I would recommend this particular one.
There are hard and fast rules that we should all follow such as
only making breaking changes on a major version bump (after
graduation or version numbers > 1.0).
Apart from this, it's very much up to you as you see appropriate
for the project. I agree with the reasoning that 0.1 sounds like
Cyclone DDS is very immature and moving to 0.5 gives a better
impression of its state.
Ian
On 14/11/2019 15:35, Erik Boasson
wrote:
Dear PMC members,
Cyclone DDS releases are far and few between — the
first and so far only release was early in the year — but I
really do want to do another release. I might even say, need to
do one, if only for ROS2 versioning purposes.
There are some i’s to be dotted still, for example
updating the version number in the sources and regenerating the
documentation linked from the GitHub readme, and with a bit of
luck and some help from elsewhere, a few t’s to be crossed, such
as uploading documentation to readthedocs.io or so.
There is a marked increase in contributions from other people,
so there is a chance of such things happening, but I wouldn’t
hold my breath.
The reason I haven’t bumped the version number yet
is to a large extent that I want to do a jump in version number.
I have tried to explain why in the release documentation page. I
would be most grateful if you could look at the release
information page and let me know If you are willing to accept
that jump: then I can least bump the number and tag a commit as
a prerelease. That would help a lot with the integration in the
ROS2 ecosystem.