Perhaps calling it 2.0 is not a bad thing and it sounds of less of a hassle. Breaking the ABI (by rushing major API changes) just so that the semantics of what "2.0" means, seems inappropriate. If/when the unification starts, we could bump it to 3.0, 4.0 or any other number. There are quite a few of them we could use :p
my two cents, Ragi -- View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/gdal-dev-Which-version-number-for-the-next-GDAL-release-1-10-or-2-0-tp5014634p5015202.html Sent from the GDAL - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
