Thus spake Nick Mathewson (nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxx): > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:12 PM, georgeofthejungle > <george_of_the_jungle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I've been using Tor for many years now (when Tor was hosted by EFF), and > > I love how fast and far Tor is progressing, as well as other Tor Project > > projects (e.g., TorBrowser and TorButton). I've always wondered what it > > would take for Tor to be called v1.0, e.g., how different would that Tor > > be vs. the current Tor? > > Personally, I've been thinking we should just drop the leading "0" for > the first release to become stable after this fall, in honor of the > tenth anniversary of our first public release. (Assuming I'm counting > right) Hrm.. I don't really like the "drop the 0" idea. I really think it was a bad idea for TBB. I don't feel like TBB is 2.x software, but I wasn't paying attention when that decision was made (I was still in delusion about being able to maintain a secure, usable browser addon to pay much attention to TBB at that point) :/. Recently however, I actually was thinking it might be a good idea to revision TBB lower as soon as it stops being a "bundle" and just becomes "Tor Browser" (ie it loses Vidalia and gains an updater). I think at that point it would be much closer to what a 1.0 software release should be. Of course, TBB is already sort of trapped by the current versioning, which is why I think it's important to caution tor-core against making the same mistake. > Once I thought there was such a thing as being "done" with all this > stuff, and that kind of "done" would be called "1.0". Now I think > there's always more challenges and opportunities, and so on. Obviously not my decision, but if we want to start bumping major tor-core version numbers, these are the milestones I would use: 1.0 - Anonymity: Cryptographic protection against tagging attacks 2.0 - Performance: Datagram transport/other performance improvements 3.0 - Scalability: The network can support tens of millions of users If 1.0 is instead "Damnit, it's been 10 years!" (which seems OK to me; there are certainly worse milestones), then I think that list just moves back a version number, but dropping the 0 still doesn't strike me as the right move. We do have quite a bit more work to do before this stuff is actually usable by most of the population, and I think that is what a 3.x version number represents to most people (or at least it used to). After all, we are attempting to do what is more or less perceived as impossible by many, and I think being somewhat conservative about version numbers is still the right decision... Your eternal optimist, -- Mike Perry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk