On Thursday 29 November 2007 23:25, Curtis Olson wrote: [snip...] > How about I say it this way ... our version number system has become > too tedious and ponderous. And are you suggesting that a 10 year old > mature software product can't be allowed a v1.0 version number? It's > never going to be perfect, and never going to have every feature that > everyone wants. If I would have been smart, I would have called the > very first release v1.0which is what I do now with all my other > projects, and we wouldn't even be > having this discussion. Let's move forward, full speed ahead! > > Curt.
Almost Just a tongue-in-cheek suggestion... why not go against the flow and accept that there will never be a fault-free 'perfect' version of FG and deliberately never release a V1.00 version:) Instead, we could just start adding another version sub-subfix:) In effect, and by other s/w producers standards we would already be somewhere between versions 5 and 20, so 0.9.12.00 would be cool. Infact, I think it would be both amusing and publicity-worth to make a point of it because in reality it's true:) I think it would be a statement that most development people would recognise and appreciate and atm they are the most significant users of FG:) LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
