1.0 sounds fine to me, 2.009 seems like a bit of a jump from 0.95 :).
Adrian.
The Web Maestro wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:11 AM, Vincent Hennebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip/>
Moreover, it can only puzzle users I think. We've used <1.0 version
numbers for all those years, we've started a whole series of 0.9x
releases, and all of a sudden we jump to >2.0?! With no significant
changes from 0.95, moreover. They will wonder what is that revolution
that they missed and that justifies such a jump.
I agree with Vincent here. I'd like to finally see a 1.0 release...
Perhaps we'll be in the minority of having a stable 1.0 release (or at
least that's the hope!)? ;-)
The 'least worse' way to stop the <1.0 curse, IMO, is to actually call
the next release 1.0, with the following message: the re-design branch
has been worked on for quite some time now, it brings many new features
and improvements compared to the old 0.20.5; it's considered stable
enough to be used in production and 1.0 is used to acknowledge that.
The work on changing IPD is likely to bring major changes to the layout
engine, which will justify a 1.5 or 2.0 version. Once serious work has
been done on optimization, a 2.5 or 3.0 can be released. Once
significant features from XSL-FO 1.1 have been added, 3.5 or 4.0. And so
on.
After all, there are many open-source projects that have been around for
years, and whose version numbers are still in 1.x or 2.x.x.
IMHO, we should finally get out of the crib, and call it fop-1.0.
Regards,
The Web Maestro
