> On Mar 21, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Geert Janssens <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Technically that is correct. > > However the unstable releases are not the focus of development. They are only > pre-releases > intended for testing. They all eventually lead up to a "major/minor release" > in the next stable > series. And that release is the relevant one, not the unstable releases. > > So I think you can mention unstable releases, yet explain that git-master > will lead up to the > next "major/minor release" or stable release series. > > You'll note that I keep adding "major" as I really have issues with calling > these big updates > "minor". Perhaps we can have a brainstorm over this among developers and > interested > commmunity members.
Yeah, I agree. Major releases are when the middle number changes and minor releases are when the 3rd number changes. Minor releases are by policy bug-fix only. (That should be in the wiki along with the numbering system). The first number changes only when we make huge architectural changes: The last one, from 1 to 2 involved changing most of the code from Scheme to C *and* upgrading the GUI from Gtk1 to Gtk2. I think completing the C++ rewrite of the engine including making it SQL query driven instead of all in memory will merit a first-number change to 3, but I'm not going to promise that that will be done by 2017 so there will probably be a 2.8 series before we're ready for 3.0. If we subsequently change the GUI that might warrant another first-number change. But what's a good name for first-number releases? "Catastrophic" is probably correct, but isn't really an image we want to project for user recruitment. "Enormous", "Earth-shaking", and so on sound silly. How about "! Global" or "Fundamental" to indicate that the way the program works is different from before? Regards, John Ralls _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
