Even, I think calling it 3.0 would be reasonable.
Best regards, Frank On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:56 AM Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > As a feedback from the previous motion, it appears that GDAL 3.0 would > > probably better reflect the API & behaviour changes that have been done, > and > > be in accordance with our HOWTO-RELEASE procedure and semantic versionning > > rules. > > > I'm OK with that change. > > > If we decide for that, the plan would probably be: > > - change in docs & other materials the references to 2.5 to 3.0 > > - create a release/3.0 branch from the HEAD of release/2.5 > > - abandon release/2.5 branch (that is: backports would be done in > release/3.0, > > and for longer support in release/2.4 when appropriate) > > - issue a 3.0.0RC1 from that > > - call master 3.1dev > > > Thoughts ? > > > Even > > > -- > Spatialys - Geospatial professional services > http://www.spatialys.com > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev -- ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com light and sound - activate the windows | and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Software Developer
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
