On Wednesday 17 November 2004 22:42, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 Nov 2004 21:26, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> > Well, consider the amount of bugfixing that went into 0.9.9. Does
> > this really feels like a .1 release ? We're getting fairly close to
> > 1.0, I still feels 0.9.91 is a better version number.
>
> That's a lousy excuse, or a lousy case of post-rationalisation.
>
> Call it 0.9.9.5 or 0.9.9.9 then. Or 1.0pre1rc2.
Helio discouraged us from using 1.0pre1, and, honestly, 4 subdigits look a bit
too much for a version number. It's just confusing.
> Would anyone here actually object if we did this series of release
> candidates, just enough to establish there weren't any hugely
> embarrassing bugs, and then labelled the resulting release 1.0?
>
> Then we could have a party.
Nah, I only have a couple bugs left to fix (autoscrolling behaving properly
with tools, and that problem with the matrix canvas being too small in some
cases), but these might take a while. Please let's have this release first.
--
Guillaume.
http://www.telegraph-road.org
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE
FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines
robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match
for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
