It also has the advantage of synchronizing with the DP version number. Microsoft went from Word 2 to Word 6. I don't think anyone will much mind.
Julian. 2009/2/23 Krzysztof Kozmic <[email protected]> > This definatelly is not a point release. > My concern is, about how it would look like, if there was a 2.0 release, > when there never was a v1.0. > > That's why I suggested sticking to v1.0. Grzegorz however brought up very > valid point, so I'd proceed one of two ways: > > - stick to v1.0 for common sense sake. > - call it v2.0 and create a page describing (and mention on blogs) why we > skipped version one. > > >>> [email protected] 2009-02-23 15:34:26 >>> > I think we should vote, yes, and I suggest adding 2.0 as well. This is not > just a point release. > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Grzegorz makes the same valid point Ayende and I have made during this >> discussion. I think we are going to need some sort of consensus to decide >> where we want to go with version numbers: >> >> a) 1.0 >> b) 1.1 >> c) 1.5 >> d) something else >> >> 1.5 does seem logical because the trunk has moved on quite a lot from RC3 >> (1.5yrs ago), I'm sure many people think of RC3 as the unofficial 1.0. Going >> with 1.5 would avoid the confusion people will have thinking they can easily >> upgrade from 1.0 RC3. >> >> Thoughts? >> Votes (in a separate thread?) >> >> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Grzegorz Sobanski <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> * Krzysztof Kozmic <[email protected]> [2009-02-19 16:39]: >>> > I'm not a commiter, but I'll say what I think nonetheless ;) >>> >>> I'm just a small user of castle... >>> >>> > seeing 1.5 might be confusing to people, considering there never was an >>> official v1.0 release. >>> >>> ...but I don't think releasing 1.0 now is a good idea. >>> 1.5 or even 2.0 would be better. >>> >>> It's because RC3 was there for a looong time, and a lot (A LOT) >>> has changed in the projects. Even APIs are not the same, etc, etc. >>> Going from 1.0rc3 to 1.0 is a step that suggest it is API compatible, >>> and only contains bugfixes. >>> >>> I would acknowledge that rc3 was de facto 1.0 and was used as such, >>> and release 1.5. >>> >>> HTH >>> silk >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jono >> >> >> >> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it > is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, > privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you > are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, > copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this > message in error, please delete all copies of this message and notify the > sender immediately by return mail or fax ATSI S.A.(+4812) 285 36 04. > > Any email attachment may contain software viruses which could damage your own > computer system. Whilst reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this > risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result > of software viruses. You should therefore carry out your own virus checks > before opening any attachments. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
