From: Tim <ter...@us...> - 2007-12-12 21:53:11
|
>I have mixed feelings mainly since we have been trumpeting that the new > code-base would be 1.0... Not that we (not the least myself) have given > conflicting information about versioning earlier too. > But hey, it's open-source, we do as we darn please :-) > As I've seen Tim is hard at work to fix more stuff in 0.9 I guess that's > an opportunity to complete an 1.0 version. Tim what do you say? I would have to say no. Keep the current 0.9.x and 1.x branches. Don't worry about the increasing 0.9.x version too much. Starting with 0.9.1, that will give us nine possible releases to do the things we want. Plus all the pre- release candidates etc. I think we should be able to add some neat stuff by then. If it comes to 0.9.9 and we need more, then we didn't do something right. I think by then development on 1.x should be in full swing, including me. Or I mean development SHOULD be entirely focused on 1.x by then. Also, technically speaking, 0.x IS the 'first' version and 1.x IS the 'second' version, no? Maybe what the poster was implying was that people assume that a a project's 1.x version is going to be the better one to get than a 0.9 version, which is somehow inferior. But use Linux for a while and you find that it's usually the 0.9 you want, for stability and full-features. Many projects go this same route. As an example, look at 'Swami', the soundfont editor. For a long time they've had the stable 0.9.x release, while working on a 1.x release which never seems to be quite stable enough, but is in very active development and looking good these days. I would like to ask one thing: Why do we have all those CVS branches? Can we eliminate all except the REL07, so that when people browse or download the CVS, they're getting the one that counts? It wasn't until Robert sent me an example custom CVS command line, that I even knew which branch I was contributing to... Tim. |