* Durk Talsma -- Wednesday 17 December 2008: > would it be an idea to release this version as 2.0?.
I'm against that. fgfs is in acceptable shape for a minor release, but it would be an embarrassment for a major release. Curt says he doesn't care about version numbers, but the "community" certainly does. 2.0 sounds like a big(ger) step forward, and at the moment I don't see that. Just teleport or reset and you are likely to run into your terminal being flooded with NaN messages, from which you can only escape by aborting. That doesn't sound like 2.0 material, and I don't think it will be fixed by the weekend. Rushing out releases is never a good idea, but it's especially bad for a major "symbolic" release. 0.95 (or something like that) would be OK -- as a kind of preview for the "big release". Before we drop the 0.9* idea, I'd rather defer the release a few months. If we don't want that release numbers imply anything other than "next step", then we have to just number them 1..infinity or label them with their release date, without "major", "minor" numbers. Otherwise there *is* a meaning to about anyone, whether we like it or not. m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
