Erik Hofman said:

> Matevz Jekovec wrote:
> 
> > Why not simply name it 0.9.5.1 (latest kernel is 2.6.8.1 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 0.9.5.1 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.

Best,

Jim


_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Reply via email to