Steve Hosgood wrote:
PS: Is it planned that after 1.0.0, there will be a 'development' tree of 1.1.x, with the next "proper" release becoming 1.2.x? Opinions differ on whether or not this scheme is good or bad, but the FG project gods probably need to think it through pretty soon.
This scheme seems to work really well for things like the linux kernel or desktop environments where they are 'core' services that people depend on to run their machine. For an end user app, this seems to be less beneficial. For what it's worth, we did use this version numbering scheme for a while. Officially 0.8.0 is our 'stable' release. However, as soon as we released 0.8.0 and made 0.9.0 available, *everyone* ignored 0.8.0 and ran with 0.9.x.
So we tried this approach and it died a natural death of being ignored. At some point it might make sense to revive this scheme, but right now I'm not ready to do it.
Curt. -- Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
