On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:52, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Steve Hosgood wrote: > >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?
> 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. > It may not be universally true, but quite a few projects only start the "even/odd" numbering scheme *after* they've got as far as 1.0.0 All the way through the 0.x.y numbering era I think the usual idea is that there *is* no "stable release" as such. I can quite understand why everyone forgot about 0.8 of FlightGear once 0.9.x came out! *So* much new stuff had appeared since 0.8 no one wanted to run it any more. But you could consider that after 1.0.0 things will change - if you make it so. Have a rule that the only tarballs and other packages on the FlightGear website are of the even subtree. Anyone wanting odd subtree stuff must go to the CVS for it. Make sure that the even subtree doesn't get covered in cobwebs (so to speak) such that no-one wants to run it because it lacks all the cool new features (the 0.8 mistake). Don't start 1.1.x until at least 1.0.5 or 1.0.6 have come out so that immediately post 1.0.0 the development team's efforts are aimed at making dead sure 1.0.x will run properly. Linux kernel people rarely start the odd subtree until at least ".10" of the even subtree is out. Just my thoughts - other opinions may differ. Steve _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
