On Monday 19 January 2009, Chris Cannam wrote: > I think it's quite true that a project with only occasional casual > labourers, no full-time staff,
No full-time developers. I have vastly more time to spend here than I have work to do that's within my ability to accomplish. > I nearly raised that as an objection to that numbering system too, but > actually I don't think it does rule out a time-based numbering scheme > -- you just pick the number corresponding to when you actually do the > release, not every six months or whatever. Except likely as not, there will be two or three in one month, and then a long string of nothing. If 1.7.x didn't fit that pattern, it didn't miss by much. I've forgotten the timing, but the first three fell quite close together in time. Having 9.05 (let's just be optimistic again for the hell of it) and 9.05.1, 9.05.2 and then 9.06 just doesn't seem like a good scheme at all. > Alternatively, release every six months regardless of whether "the > work is done" or not. That may not be as effective for a project like > this, though. No. I don't like that idea at all, because likely as not it will have some random broken half-assed thing we're waiting on someone to finish. -- 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
