Hi, My vote: This release: 0.9.9
Next Release which will be (hopefully) OSG: 1.0 Regards HHS --- Curtis Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal > thread here to do a poll on > what what folks are thinking for the next version > number. > > I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is > what I'm thinking. > > 0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd > like to avoid possible > unintended connections that end users might > interpret from such a version > number. This has nothing to do with terrorism, they > don't care what version > numbers we use or don't use. There is no "fear" > involved in wanting to > avoid using this number. Try "respect". It might > have something to do with > showing respect to those that were affected by 9/11 > and those many heros > that gave up their lives without hesitation to try > to save the lives of > others. I don't fault people who live outside of > the USA or who have never > been to New York or were never near ground zero for > not "getting it", > there's an awful lot of stuff outside my little > sphere of vision that I will > never understand. But give me a break, what's the > problem with yielding a > small amount of leeway and respect to those that > were affected by 9/11 or > had connections there? > > We could skip over to 0.9.12, but then we are > staring in the face of > 0.9.13and are we going to run into problems if we > pick a version # 13? > I wore > number 13 in my soccer (err futbol) game the other > evening and missed all my > shots. I wore a different number last night and > scored two goals. These > facts cannot be ignored! > > We could go with 0.10.0, but then all the odd/even > version number proponents > are going to come out of the woodwork, and that is > going to mire in it's own > set of politics. > > We could go with v1.0 ... we've been at this 10 > years, and averaging > 0.1versions a year isn't so bad. This is my > preference. FlightGear > is > developing at a rapid rate, but if we stick with > 0.9.12, 0.9.13, 0.9.14 it > seems like we are bumping along with very minor > increments every few (or > many) months. > > Of course this all boils down to marketing. Who > cares what the actual > numbers are really, as long as they increment in a > sensible way. But what > image do we want to project to the world? > > Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks > that way sometimes!) :-) > inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic > exciting group with fast > paced development continually adding new and > exciting features and > aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we > really only managed a > 0.9.xrelease in all that time? Again, not that > version number really > mean > anything, other than to project our image to the > world. > > I say it's "go time". :-) > > Curt. > -- > Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ > Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > __________________________________ Ihr erstes Fernweh? Wo gibt es den schönsten Strand? www.yahoo.de/clever ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
