From: Geoffrey F. <fu...@ga...> - 2002-01-18 05:25:26
|
Interesting discussion. I am okay with 5.1.0, also okay with 5.0.5. I think enough has happened to justify calling it 5.1.0. One variance I have from what Alan said, is that I don't view major version numbers as being strictly a way to denote major change. Major feature stabilization is itself noteworthy. When we get TEA in, dynamic drivers made the default, and java support enabled by default, I would be happy to call it 6.0.0. But I'd also want to see a doc shakedown run before that too. This is effectively what was hinted at by the 4.99* series. The idea was we felt it was nearly time to call it 5.0, but just wanted to fix the last few bugs. But we just never got it all straight. Well, things are different now, with all this activity, for which I am very thankful to see such energy being poured into PLplot from so many developers. We are now able to have much more frequent, and more substantive rleeases. And the mere thought of bantering about release numbers is almost enough to induce giggles all by itself. My how far PLplot has come! My final (well, err, next to final, see below) viewpoint is that Alan is playing the release-meister role, and has final say on numbering, dates, etc. Certainly, if it were up to me, as in the (now thankfully distant) past, there would be no release in January... :-). My really truly final viewpoint on this, is that I don't think we should have a release with a broken tk driver. I would call that a showstopper. I just hope I'm not the guilty party on that one... -- Geoffrey Furnish fu...@ga... |