On Nov 7, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Even Rouault <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I'm wondering if we shouldn't release GDAL trunk as GDAL 1.10 instead of GDAL > 2.0. > > As far as I know, there haven't been yet any change in GDAL trunk that > qualifies as a major re-architecturing, or that breaks the C API & ABI of the > GDAL 1.X series. I'm not sure if or when someone will want to tackle one of > the items listed in http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/GDAL20Changes , but this > would likely defer a release by months, especially if we want a GDAL 2.0 with > a number of significant changes. And sticking with our traditional yearly > release rythm seems to me like a good practice. Current trunk has nothing > revolutionary, but a nice amount of new drivers and fixes/improvements that > are > worth a release. > > Thoughts ? I've already baked in some macro checking for 2.0 due to the fact that the master branch has been called this for months. I don't know that others have done the same, but the expectation has been that 2.0 is next for the last year. I agree that not too many "2.0 worthy" changes have been made to the library, and that's probably a good thing frankly. IMO, it's easier to major_version++ that wiki page and kick that can down the road. Besides, Frank hates double-digit minor versions like 1.10 or 1.26, so he'll probably veto anyway :) Let's call it 2.0. People will be pleasantly surprised when they find out it doesn't break anything, unlike most 2.0 releases they've ever touched of just about everything. Howard _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
