Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Either the 1.0 number means anything, then fgfs better be complete.
Or it doesn't mean anything, then let's release it when it's done
and call the next releases 0.9.10++.
Or is there a compelling reason to rush out 1.0 *now*? One that we
aren't told for whatever reason? Does anyone pay for it whose
business depends on it? (MathWorks?) Or is it that fgfs needs for
some reason to be called 1.0.0 for SCALE 2006? And why? Other
reasons? Do we deserve to know about them? Doesn't look like it.
I'm now sufficiently fed up with the secret 1.0 agenda, that I'll
stop contributing until after this monstrosity is out.
Huh!?! We are making a huge controversy over the difference of plus or
minus 0.0.1
Maybe we should drop the arbitrary version numbering scheme (and I do
see the version numbers as 99.9.9% arbitrary) and go with code names for
our releases. Would that make people happier?
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt
HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
