[merge] rename 0.19 to 0.90
amanic at gmail.com
Fri Aug 10 09:14:18 BST 2007
On 8/10/07, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Go ahead. I have my doubts about it, but they're no big deal. I think
> Matthew has a point that twiddling the version causes negative emotions
> for some, and I'm one of them. It seems like a superficial and somewhat
> deceptive thing. Remember when Microsoft Word jumped from 2.0 to 6.0 to
> compete with WordPerfect? Remember when Netscape skipped 5? That what
> I associate with version number twiddling.
I also don't like the fiddling.
Slackware Version jump from 4 to 7.
Java 1.1 --> 1.2 = 2 --> 1.3 --> 1.4 --> 1.5 = 5
it only causes confusion.
Say we go to 0.90 now, I think we should lay out a roadmap
of what we will aim for in 0.91..0.99..0.1
I couldn't find one with this much detail, maybe I'm just out of the loop,
but I want a list of exactly what is required for 1.0.
We have to ensure that we get to 1.0 after 0.99.
other wise we'll get 0.100, 0.122 and then you are going to want to jump to
If we are uncertain about 1.0 withing the next 10 months,
we would be better off sticking with to 0.19..
But we've done it before. What the hey.
well maybe we should learn from this for post 1.0
maybe we should have 1.0.0
where the monthly releases only increment the last number (1.0.0..1.0.9),
and when the project reached some key milestones the major and minor numbers
(1.0.x -> 1.1.x -> 1.2.x -> 2.0.x)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bazaar