On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:09 AM, D. Michael McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote: > The result so far is a three-way split: > >> [X] Rosegarden 09.06 >> [X] Rosegarden 09.06 >> [X] Rosegarden 9.1 >> [X] Rosegarden 9.1 >> [X] Rosegarden 9.06 >> [X] Rosegarden 9.06
Hmm. I made it one for 9.06 (you), three for 09.06 (Julie, Heikki and me -- although I didn't say so, that's my preference) and four for 9.1 (Vlada, Emanuel, Yves and Shelagh). Am I missing something? Did someone else vote for 9.06? I'm increasingly persuaded that 9.1 is not a good idea, despite its popularity. I think it looks too much like a conventional major/minor version number and makes things confusing if, for example, 9.3 -> 10.1 turns out to be a tiny update while 10.1 -> 10.2 is a major feature release. That's less of a problem if it's explicit that the "minor" number is simply the month. The numbers should either be totally deterministic as Heikki likes, or totally determined by us. I prefer 09.06 to 9.06 because I like the look better, it sorts better against 10.05, and it looks a little bit less like Ubuntu. Of course, the distinction will become totally moot in less than a year anyway. I hereby propose that we wait until 2010 to release anything, in order to avoid this serious and intractable problem. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
