Erik Hofman said:

> Matevz Jekovec wrote:
> > Why not simply name it (latest kernel is as well as they 
> > found a tiny bug in 2.6.8 version). Letters behind a version could mess 
> > with things like a for Alpha, b for Beta, RC for Release Candidate and 
> > so on. I think is the only logical explenation to what happened 
> > to us and why are we releasing a new version.
> To be honest, I don't really mind what it's called like. This might be a 
> good idea after all, as long as there will be an update to the latest 
> release version.
> There were enough changes (both fixes and updates) to justify one (IMHO).

I almost agree with that :-).  It seems like folks are pretty busy now and not
a lot is being added to cvs.  That means this could be a great time to get a
fairly stable release out.

It seems like it should just be called 0.9.6 and I we should avoid last minute
changes now (otherwise, why bother?) and I have no idea what effort is
required on Curt's part to do this.

So I won't say much other than we should stay on the same numbering scheme.



Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to