I was just futzing around with one of the file dialogs when it dawned on me we've been referring to "Rosegarden 2.1" for years, and we're getting ready to release what was expected to be "Rosegarden 2.0"
I just changed that to "X11 Rosegarden" throughout, but a little voice in my head is telling me this isn't distinctive enough. I don't think we have to worry about any distros still confusing us with that obsolete relic Chris abandoned years ago, but this whole "Rosegarden 2.1" idiom is still out there in googlespace, yielding 2860 hits. The hits even on the first page are obviously obsolete to me, but probably wouldn't be to a newbie. I can just hear the lame questions now. "I have 2.0, but I see there's a 2.1 available. Why does it look so strange?" We already tried to deal with this whole issue once with the Rosegarden-4 thing. I don't think that worked out very well at all. We still have random legacy references to "rosegarden-4" even though we tried to abolish the last of that quite some time ago. Sitting here this evening, it occurs to me that what we should give some serious though to is skipping over ALL possible confusion, and just calling this sumbitch 5.0. I kind of like Rosegarden 200 too, and 210 and 211 and 213 and 250 and so on, but I'm thinking it would be cleaner in the long run to keep a more conventional numbering scheme, and just kick it up high enough to get above any room for confusion about what's newer than what. Discuss! -- D. Michael McIntyre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
