[merge] rename 0.19 to 0.90

[Marius Kruger]

whoops I only saw the *Version numbering post 1.0* thread now

On 8/10/07, Marius Kruger <amanic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 0.990 :)
> 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 can jump.
> (1.0.x -> 1.1.x -> 1.2.x -> 2.0.x)
>
>
>
> my 2c
> marius
>



-- 
bazaar-vcs.org
Because I don't trust Version Control Systems with less than 6953 unit
tests.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20070810/fdc77e33/attachment-0001.htm