Ivan Lucena wrote:
We can always have 1.10 and 1.11 etc. That would not be uncommon (there
is for example Perl 5.10 as we're waiting for Perl 6). However, I'm for
I like that.
Folks,
Well, I hate two digit releases, and they confuse the versioning
in stuff like OSGeo4W. Not a compelling reason. Also, without a
hard limit, I might never try a jump to 2.0!
having 2.0, not just because numbers ran out but because that would be a
chance to do something a bit more major. One idea would be to make a
general call for new ideas and wish lists.
But maybe the support for UNICODE could be considered a major change. No?
The approach to unicode has very backward compatible in order to avoid
a need for a major version. It has also been spread over multiple releases
with utf-8 for OGR field values done in 1.6 or 1.7, and filenames done in
1.8.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [email protected]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
