Hi there,
The changes to fg in the past 12 months are very significant and welcome, but
the implementation of some of the changes is still in its infancy. That factor,
along with the missing shadows, leave me feeling that an update to v2.0 is not
yet warranted - not quite! Its getting close, but to me requires a little more
polish. Going to 1.9.2 wouldn't do justice to all the work done since 1.9.1, so
1.10.0 would get my vote. The missing shadows would *have* to be reimplemented
for me to feel like the software deserved a v2.0. After all, to add something
that significant in the earlier versions, then have it vanish (understandably
of course, the 'engine' got replaced after all!), then not see it return, is
slightly disappointing.
Thats my $0.02 worth.
Regards,
Chris Wilkinson, YBBN/BNE.
________________________________
From: Stuart Buchanan <[email protected]>
To: FlightGear Dev <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, 14 December, 2009 7:02:14 AM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Version number for the upcoming release
Hi All,
About this point in the release cycle, it's traditional to have a version
numbering discussion, if only so Martin and I can ensure that the documentation
matches the final binary!
My thoughts are as follows:
- The changes we've made in the last year are significant, so incrementing from
1.9.1 to 1.9.2 seems inadequate, given that the increment from 1.9.0 to 1.9.1
was a bug-fix release.
- Changing from 1.9.1 to 1.10.0 is going to confuse at least some people
(though we've done it before with 0.9.10).
As I recall, the original argument for not naming the last release v2.0 was
that we
felt that there were still some plib features that we didn't have in
OSG, in particular shadows. However, the graphics in OSG now exceed plib in
most areas (better 3D clouds, trees, shader effects, multiple
camera support), so I would claim that this is no-longer a sensible
comparison.
Given this, I think we should just bite the bullet and go for v2.0.0. We should
be pretty proud of the scope and function in FG, and I think that is an
appropriate way to recognize this.
If we start making releases on a more regular basis, this would also allow us
to use major version numbers annually (v3.0.0, v4.0.0), and minor version
numbers (v3.1.0, v3.2.0) for more quarterly releases.
-Stuart
(There, that'll increase list traffic...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
__________________________________________________________________________________
Win 1 of 4 Sony home entertainment packs thanks to Yahoo!7.
Enter now: http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
