Dave Phillips: >>I'm thinking about renaming Ceres as Ceres4, because Ceres3 sounds >>newer and better than Ceres. But if I did, Ceres4 would sounds newer >>and better than Ceres3 again, which might not be true either. >> >>(Well, to be hounest, I sometimes think Ceres3 should be named something >>non-ceres though. It is a bit confusing.) >> >As you know, Ceres has had a few hands working on it. I ported the first >Linux version back in 1997 or so, and many developers have added >features to various versions since that time. What we need is a >SuperCeres that incorporates all those features into a single version. > The sources are to different. Ceres3 only supports mono-files and is very non-thread-safe. There are two options, either implement the missing features in ceres to ceres3, or the missing features in ceres3 to ceres1. Both are quite much work, but I think the last one is the least. >I'm not sure why Stanko should change the name of Ceres3. His work >predates your own, and his naming convention simply followed the >succession starting from the original Ceres (Oyvind Hammer), Ceres2 >(Jonathon Lee), and Ceres2w (WAV support added). ?yvind Hammer has been working on Ceres in all years, the latest version (0.15) was released in 2001 if I remember correctly, before I took over. Even then, it compaired fairly to ceres3. So he never stopped the development of ceres, still other people released both ceres2, ceres2w and ceres3. I don't know why, perhaps they had good reasons. A superceres would be nice, but the fork happened for a very very long time ago, and an integration is not an easy task. --
