Am Wed, 13 Jan 2021 16:31:01 +0100 schrieb Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org>:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 03:12:10PM +0000, José Abílio Matos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 2:37:54 PM WET Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > I guess that's the point where we break. I agree that moving from 2 to 3
> > > signals major change. At the same time once some project moves to double
> > > digits versions my experience is that I am no more keeping track which
> > > version is which unless I have special interest in some bug etc.
> >
> > So let me see if I understand. You have a problem with LyX 10 but not with
> > LyX
> > 2.10 series. Is that correct?
>
> No, as I have written in my first reply my proposal is to stay with single
> digits
> as long as possible (i.e. for 2 maxing at 2.9) with an option to use sporadic
> bumps to +1 version for unusual events (like unicode, Qt3->Qt4, XML,
> anniversaries).
+1
> > My other remark is that are not changes that meet the litmus test of being
> > considered important enough to deserve the major version jump. There has
> > not
> > been none in the previous 20 years. If we applied this reasoning we would
> > start work on the release of LyX 1.11.
>
> Well, almost yes, we could be talking about 2.1 now and I do not see major
> problem with that...
>
> Pavel
Kornel
pgpGxdyXfXXCO.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
