On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Chris Little <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ben Morgan wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Chris Little wrote: >> >> >> >> Barry Drake wrote: >> >> Hi Chris ....... >> >> Chris Little wrote: >> >> We plan to have this ready for our next release >> >> This is the most fantastic exciting news. I've been carefully >> following all Troy's and your recent svn commits. Thanks for >> all the great work. >> >> >> It's all coming along very nicely, and I should be able to make an >> announcement and post some example content using a non-KJV >> versification "Real Soon Now". >> >> Can I please plead not to have this in this release? Please? I want to >> see a release. Currently trunk seems relatively stable for usual modules, >> so I'd like to see a release (once a couple of patches of mine have been >> committed...) > > I guess I don't see the logic to postponing a new feature that is much > desired and adds a lot of capability, considering that it is basically done > and shouldn't require very extensive testing. I say that it shouldn't > require much testing because the KJV v11n is now using the same kind of v11n > plugin system as we plan to use for non-KJV v11ns. > > The new v11n architecture is the biggest new feature of 1.5.12, and I think > finishing its implementation represents a sufficiently significant milestone > for the release of 1.5.12.
Can I beg, just as heartily, that you NOT call this release 1.5.12? As I've mentioned before, if you call something that has changed from a Protestant-only canon to an all-Christendom canon only a sub-minor version update, then it feels to me like you've got absolutely nothing else that COULD qualify as a more major update. It also breaks the API of programs building against the library to go from 1.5.11 to HEAD. A change from 1.5.11 to 1.5.12 should not signify a massive shift in the library's primary display content methodology (Bibles) as well as API-breaking changes -- sub-minor versions should be bug fixes and non-API changing technology. Something as monumental as deuterocanonical support should warrant, at the very least, a 1.6 moniker. If not 1.6 or 2.0... then could you possibly explain to me the rhyme or reason given to the versioning system? I presume that the two-dot notation means that the numbers are not simply indicative of chronological ordering, otherwise you'd use something like the Ubuntu numbering scheme. What constitutes a major, minor and subminor version update? I realize there's probably not a hard-and-fast rule which must always be obeyed, but certainly there should be some guiding reasoning. --Greg _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
