On 05/13/2013 05:44 PM, Owen Williams wrote:
And apparently our version numbers are too low?? That's a weird
complaint.
Probably because double-digit minor release numbers are a little
awkward, especially since we didn't start out with them (e.g. we had
v1.6.1 instead of v1.06.1)
In any
I work at the same place he does now, so I think it'll be ok :P
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 14:26 -0700, Steven Boswell II wrote:
> PLEASE, let's not go the route of the Chrome/Firefox model. I _hate_
> that.
> Major versions should be reserved for changes that are not
> backwards-compatible, like they
PLEASE, let's not go the route of the Chrome/Firefox model. I _hate_ that.
Major versions should be reserved for changes that are not
backwards-compatible, like they were originally intended.
And at the risk of angering our lead developer, I think Chrome did it first. ;-)
Or we could drop the "1." and just call this release Version 11. That's
sort of the chrome/firefox model.
(At least it's not 0.9.9.11BETA)
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 23:13 +0200, William Good wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Owen Williams wrote:
> > And apparently our version numbers are to
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Owen Williams wrote:
> And apparently our version numbers are too low?? That's a weird
> complaint.
>
Meh, it seems that's always an issue people have with OSS. The authors
have some sort of vision for the next "major" release, and everyone
else just expects ever
http://djworx.com/update-free-dj-software-mixxx-reaches-1-11-0/
It's a very positive review, but it's clear where Mixxx is lacking.
"Going back to my “almost complete” comment. When I say almost, at this
time the effects engine is woefully inadequate. The team have clearly
spent time on a lot of
