On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Collecting the arguments from this discusson, I can see good points for
> a 3.0.0 release. Most convincing was Stuarts comparison against 2.0.0
> and the progress we made since that version.
> My suggestion is, we dare to call the 2013 summer edition FlightGear
> 3.0.0 and we bump the version number later this week.
> I'll leave that discussion open for a few days and hope we can agree on
> the new number.

Having thought about this a bit more I'm going to propose we do 2.12.0 now and
"pre-announce" 3.0 as the Feb 2014 release to give us just a little more time
to prepare and make the 3.0 as polished as possible.  After all, it'll
be the third
major release in 15 years :) .

We currently have about 3 weeks before the release branches are cut,
and we'll have
some 7 weeks for bug hunting.  For a 2.12.0 release, that's business as usual,
but I can imagine that many aircraft developers in particular would
want to perform
some extra TLC before a major release.  Externally, 3.0 is going to be
a bigger deal than 2.12.0.

Declaring that the Feb 2014 release will be 3.0 now will give everyone plenty of
notice, and might encourage efforts to fix bugs in the next 6 months.  I'm aware
that my FG development time is more limited these days, and given activity on
this list I suspect I'm not alone, so this time might be quite useful.

Whatever way we go, I suggest that we zero-pad the minor release digit
after 3.0.0
so we have 3.02, 3.04 etc. to reduce confusion if we reach double digits.


This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to