I'm in similar situation as lipkab. MP campaigns are ready to go to the dev release, but they need more polishing, testing and bug fixing for the stable. In the worst case scenario, I might not be able to add all the wanted features before the freeze period.
I hope that I'll be able to get more feedback on MP campaigns after current dev release. Then it should be clear how much more work is needed for them to be ready for stable. Regards, Andrius (a.k.a. thunderstruck) On 14 November 2013 20:02, Fabian Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/12/2013 03:32 PM, Charles Dang wrote: > >> If I might make a suggestion for the versioning for the next stable >> release: could it finally be called Wesnoth 2.0? We've gone on with 1.x.x >> for awhile now with no sign of stopping, which really gives the impression >> that not much is being changed. >> > I would rather prefer to define some goals for a 2.0 release. > > >> I believe it's a good time as ever to switch version numbers - the UI has >> been/is being greatly revamped recently. Plus taking into account all the >> changes made during the 1.9 development cycle, and how greatly the game has >> improved since 1.0, I really think a change to 2.0 would be optimal. >> > LordBob and me are working on getting the game gui in sync with current > dialogs and the editor's one optic wise. > Still, the overhaul of the game gui is delayed until after the release. > Thus from a UI point of view the next (1.14) would be a better 2.0 > candidate. > Also, I suspect the 1.14 map editor being much more what it might stay for > a longer time than what goes into 1.12. > > >> There are two possible routes to go: >> * Proceed with the 1.11.x development cycle, up to the rc releases, at >> which point the number would be bumped to 2.0. After that, the current >> system of even-stable, odd-dev releases could be kept through 2.1.x, 2.2.x, >> etc. >> >> * Proceed with the 1.11.x development cycle, up to the rc releases, at >> which point the number would be bumped to 2.0. After that, 2.x releases >> would be all subsequent stable releases, and 3.x created when the time >> comes to create a new dev series. >> >> >> Maybe the idea of keeping 2.x a pretty stable one while going new ways > with a 3.x version can be considered? > > > > Wesnoth 1.0 was meant as a full featured game, > meaning it had everything in sync. > > A complete set of images for every unit at the same level of quantity and > quality is an example. > > Currently the UI is out of sync, also we have factions with pretty old > artwork (Elves) beside newly animated Saurians. > Waiting for every core unit being covered by a certain level of > completeness before it is called 2.x seems reasonable. > > Regards, > Fabian > > > _______________________________________________ > Wesnoth-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev >
_______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
