+1 to everything Ragi said. Version "numbering" like "1.10" is an affront to common sense and the basic concept of the decimal system, not to mention every OS's filename sorting. If 1.10 comes after 1.9, then it would be imperative to replace the misleading decimal points (which are, apparently, NOT decimal points) with some other punctuation (like 1-9, 1-10) to avoid confusion on precedence, and even that doesn't address the sorting mess.
Enough changes have occurred since 1.0 (I know, since I was in fact using GDAL then). Please just call it 2.0 now. -Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:gdal-dev- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of rburhum > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 7:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] Which version number for the next GDAL release : > 1.10 or 2.0 ? > > 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 _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
