On 6/24/06, Thomas Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:09:03PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote:
> Can we release a 2.6.0-rc1 and move on? Then while some would
> maintain it until a real 2.6.0, some would be working on 2.7. For the
> volunteers it's a matter of deciding to either help on perfecting
> 2.6.0 or on improving 2.7.0.
I wouldn't advise this, since all that is doing is playing "version
numbers" games without there being any forethought or intent behind that
move, other than to fit some psychological need that 2.6.0 *has* to be
released soon.
Well, if new features aren't welcome until 2.6.0 comes out, then there
is a purpose of releasing 2.6.0.
Many things have yet to be done -- that's evident all over the place,
based what is in the TODO file, and what has already resulted from
previous discussions on this list.
What would probably have to happen before 2.6.0 is even thought about is
a brain-storming idea, and prioritising those features currently out
standing, or in the current 2.5.X tree that need fixing/improving. And
be warned: it's going to take *a lot* of work. I had always hoped that
when 2.6.0 hit, that would more or less mark the starting point for what
the (very distant) FVWM3 might become.
So the question is this: before all the numbers change in terms of
versioning, and the happy-go-lucky followers of "higher numbers means
better software" jump on their bandwagon, what needs doing?
The problem, if it can be called so, is that fvwm uses the numbering
scheme "od - unstable, even - stable". Current version, 2.5.0 is
almost stable, which prevents any major change, so there's really no
unstable version now. Everything is frozen until 2.6.0 comes out,
which (as so many times stated) may never hapen..
> The way things are, the project either dies or someone forks it. It's
> not going forward if we don't allow it to.
Welcome to the wonderful world of $REAL_LIFE. Things, alas, get in the
way.
Volunteers help when they can and WHERE they want. It's allways that
way.. If the volunteers want to improve fvwm in a way that may break
the current "almost stable" version, then I guess they should be
allowed to. If that means playing with numbers, then why not?
Renato
-- Thomas Adam
--
"If I were a witch's hat, sitting on her head like a paraffin stove, I'd
fly away and be a bat." -- Incredible String Band.
