On 24 Jun 2013, at 07:53, Gijs de Rooy <gijsr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

I agree with Gijs - I've been referring to the next version as 2.12 simply by 
default; if people feel strongly it should be 3.0, well, it's just a number 
from my point of view. There was already a couple of people on IRC confused 
that 2.12 is different to 2.1.2 (since minor version numbers > 9 are something 
of a rarity in many people's perception). So that's arguably a tiny reason to 
go to 3.0 now.

Again, it's just a number to me. Give our release pattern is date scheduled, an 
Ubuntu style numbering scheme would actually make more sense, but a bit more 
effort to move too.

If anyone spends more than five minutes worrying about the version number of 
the next release, I would say save your efforts and use them on something more 
fun or rewarding :)

This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to