Hi Thorsten,
Wherever I mentioned 2.12, it was because that's the logical follow up on 2.10.
If we didn't decide anything, we'd "automatically" end up with 2.12 instead of
3.0.
That's all. I wouldn't worry too much about someone who's telling what other
people think, without he himself taking part in the discussion.
Gijs
> From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi
> To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 06:27:32 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] reminder: entering feature freeze now
>
>
> Referring to the version number discussion, I've been given to understand here
>
> http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=20137#p185619
>
> that there have been already "core developers referring to the next release
> as 2.12" a while ago who would now be "obviously pretty annoyed about it
> [i.e. me arguing for 3.0]".
>
> It hasn't been my intention to annoy anyone by opening an already closed
> discussion, neither do I have a particularly strong opinion on the point,
> just an opinion.
>
> I do not know if the statements quoted above are correct, if there is really
> a generally accepted set of goals for 3.0 or not, or whether people feel
> annoyed or not. I took TorstenD's post
>
>
> > As of today, the set of new features should be complete. The usual
> > question at this point is: What version number will we give to the new
> > release?
> > Are we ready for a 3.0 or is it 2.12?
>
>
> for a genuine question indicating that the issue would be open, in response
> to which I summarized by opinion and stated my case. Since I am not aware of
> any other occasions where project milestones are publicly discussed, I attach
> a fairly high importance to these discussions hoping that a picture emerges
> of what is going on. I am well aware that such discussions are not always
> pleasant, but in my opinion having unpleasant discussions is still better for
> project coherence than developing in fractured groups which talk only among
> the group but do not participate in public discussions.
>
> In case this wasn't meant as a genuine question and I missed a hint from
> somewhere, I would like to apologize for needlessly opening an issue which is
> apparently already settled. I would also like to clearly state that I regard
> version numbers as an essentially minor issue (with some PR value attached to
> it). In comparison to 2.0, I see several novel systems leave the experimental
> stage and reach maturity, which in combination now lead to a quite different
> user experience, and that's what drives my opinion. If there are already
> other criteria defined and generally agreed upon, I apologize for missing the
> point.
>
>
> * Thorsten
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
