It's worth noting that there are two separate versioning for such packages (like Maya, Max, etc.) - public, marketing-friendly like 2011 or whatever and technical, internal similar to Blender. For Blender I think incorporating the title of the current open project would fit better - something like Blender "Durian" 3.0. Blender 2010 is just... meh.
But i'm sure devs will stick with the single versioning anyway. On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Benjamin Tolputt <[email protected]> wrote: > Wolfgang Fähnle wrote: >> The most people wait for 2.5, like me. >> Alpha, beta, stable and then think about 2.6. >> I like 2.49b, otherwise you could change to Blender 2010 like others do. >> > > The naming convention based on a yearly release is not a bad idea > either. One immediately knows the age of the version. One cannot say the > same with the current versioning at the moment. 2.40, 2.41, 2.42 all > came out within a very small time-frame compared to 2.48, 2.49, & 2.50. > > It's not something I'm hung up on, but a good idea worth highlighting. > > -- > Regards, > > Benjamin Tolputt > Analyst Programmer > > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
