On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Stuart Buchanan <stuar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> considered
> 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.

Hi Stuart, before you wrote your message, I was going to write that my
preference is to cut over to 3.0.0 for this release. :-)

That said, we probably created and endured most of the potential confusion
when we went with 2.10.x so continuing on with 2.12.x probably doesn't make
things any worse for ourselves at this point.

In retrospect, I can see how this has the ability to create confusion ...
many computer systems sort file names in ascii order, many people don't
seem to pay careful attention to where the decimal points are placed, etc.

Once we clear past the 2.10, 2.12, etc. series, I'd like to go back to
keeping things single digits in the major and minor version numbers and
when we run out of a single digits bump up the major number (so 3.8.x ->
4.0.x).  Number are numbers, but this one confused a lot more people than I
expected it would or should so maybe it's good to be sensitive to that
after we clear the 2.x series of versions.

So to summarize, I would have voted for 3.0.x as my personal preference,
but numbers are numbers and 2.12 works just as well for me.

This email probably took me 5 minutes to write, so I've said what I wanted
to say and I'm done worrying about it now, whatever the final consensus is.

Curtis Olson:
http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/
http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to