On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:14:30PM +0200, David Neary <dneary@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I say it's time for a show of hands. My vote is for 2.0, because
My vote is for 1.x, or 2.0, if sven decides it on the grounds that we
need it for marketing. The other arguments simply don't overweight the
confusion I anticipate. How *do* you count? ;=>
And, actually, I think voting is not useful... we'll have to convince the
people with the power (which includes Sven) to do it. Whoever does the
release decides. Anarchy. I like it.
> there are likely to be lots of new bugs and 1.4 makes it sould
> like a really stable release.
Just like 1.0 and 1.2, eh? really stable releases, eh? or kernel-2.4, or..
I am sorry, but there are no stable and unstable branches. 1.2 or 1.4 or
2.0 have nothing to do with stability, but all with branching. You
expect stability after lots of testing from users, who will not test cvs
snapshots.
That is, you create a 1.4.x or 2.0.x branch. This is how it handled
about anywhere else, including older gimp versions. changing this
wlel-established way if handling releases is going to give much more
confusion.
Basically, why don't we just use revision numbers from cvs, or a simple
counter... really, the current trend makes version numbers less and less
informative, so why keep them at all?
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
