Hi,
On Dec 14, 2009, at 7:18 AM, James Turner wrote:
> One observation - the intention, at least mine and Tim's, is to move to
> quarterly releases, so I have no intention of 'finishing' the route manager
> for a particular release. (Regular release cycles take the pressure of
> rushing to co
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Jacob Burbach wrote:
> I'm not a huge fan of
> rolling over into double digits though, unless you started with double
> digits to begin with. For example 1.09 to 1.10 is logical to me, but
> 1.9.1 to 1.10 is not, I would expect 1.9.1 to be the newer in this
> case
What if we start naming releases in addition to the normal version
scheme. FlightGear 2.x.x , name could be some continued
variation on a theme or something. I think that would be a nice middle
ground, we keep a meaningful versioning scheme, and also get a catchy
name for everyone. I've worked on p
park a bit more user interest in the project by
having a more human name for milestone releases...
Just my $0.02 worth again...
Regards,
Chris Wilkinson, YBBN/BNE.
From: Stefan Seifert
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Sent: Mon, 14 December, 2009 6:
I don't think anything wrong with the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCHLEVEL format, I
think it's fairly obvious, and is widely used. I'm not a huge fan of
rolling over into double digits though, unless you started with double
digits to begin with. For example 1.09 to 1.10 is logical to me, but
1.9.1 to 1.10 is no
On Monday 14 December 2009 05:46:11 Chris Wilkinson wrote:
> There could have been any number of better ways to express the version
> number, but they chose to use one that can combine more than one decimal
> place into what looks to a lay person like a mistyped number... not
> clever.
Well th
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 19:07 -0800, S Andreason wrote:
> Jacob Burbach wrote:
> > Traditionally it is MAJOR.MINOR.PATCHLEVEL, definately more than a
> > patchlevel thing, and way more than minor, so either 1.10.x or 2.x.x
> > if your following that standard. 1.10 feels weird,
>
> Maybe it is wier
about many softwares that I've
disliked, is that they use the x.y.z numbering scheme.
Regards,
Chris Wilkinson, YBBN/BNE.
From: S Andreason
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Sent: Mon, 14 December, 2009 1:07:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Versio
Jacob Burbach wrote:
> Traditionally it is MAJOR.MINOR.PATCHLEVEL, definately more than a
> patchlevel thing, and way more than minor, so either 1.10.x or 2.x.x
> if your following that standard. 1.10 feels weird,
Maybe it is wierd.
1.9 is mathematically the same as 1.90
1.10 is less than 1.90 by
> Bug-fixing, testing, etc is of course a separate issue - namely that fixing
> bugs is a lot less fun than writing features.
As a developer I certainly won't disagree with that, but they are an
absolute necessity for any software, it just comes with the territory.
As a user I would also say a s
On 13 Dec 2009, at 22:10, Jacob Burbach wrote:
> Nan errors still abound, sound system has lots of rough edges still,
> the new material system is not finished, route manager not finished,
> etc, etc. Even if everything could be cleaned up by then, there would
> be no time left for any real test
Traditionally it is MAJOR.MINOR.PATCHLEVEL, definately more than a
patchlevel thing, and way more than minor, so either 1.10.x or 2.x.x
if your following that standard. 1.10 feels weird, but not sure 2.x is
warranted just yet. Could ditch all that and use dates ala ubuntu,
making it what...like 12.
Hi there,
The changes to fg in the past 12 months are very significant and welcome, but
the implementation of some of the changes is still in its infancy. That factor,
along with the missing shadows, leave me feeling that an update to v2.0 is not
yet warranted - not quite! Its getting close, bu
13 matches
Mail list logo
