Steve Hosgood wrote: > It may not be universally true, but quite a few projects only start > the "even/odd" numbering scheme *after* they've got as far as 1.0.0
My $0.02 is that we don't want to bother with this. The purpose to having a "stable" release is that third parties can build on the product and still get bug fixes without having to worry about regressions and interface changes in the development tree. For something as widely deployed as the kernel, that makes sense. For us? Shrug. Do we even have any such third parties? If we do, what is the argument for us bearing the support costs and not them? The cost of a separate development tree (well, one that works as intended and isn't just a synonym for an older version) is significant; every fix needs to be audited, applied and (the hard part) *tested* twice. Note also that even the kernel has abandoned this scheme. There are no plans on the horizon for branching off a 2.7 kernel -- new features are being folded into the 2.6 tree as they arrive. Andy _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
