[Rosegarden-devel] Fwd: Rosegarden 200, Rosegarden 2.0, Rosegarden 5.0

[Vladimir S. <vla...@gm...>]

I know many of you don't like kde release numbering scheme, but I
don't think we would lose much if using it here. I'd go with 1.9.xx
and release occasionally (using "alpha" and "beta" suffixes).
The only problem with this is that we will eventually hit 2.0 as
stable. I don't mind, though.

Playback out of the box and new custom GUI theme will be really big
improvement over 1.x series. Not to mention qt4, which IMHO can make
both things as easy as possible.

Vlada


On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Chris Cannam
<ca...@al...> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Chris Fryer <chr...@go...> wrote:
>> My two-penneth (but mainly so that Chris can let me on the list ..).
>> Is there significant new functionality coming from this port?
>> As a (quite possibly ignorant) user, I might be somewhat disappointed in a
>> fanfare release only to find the application did exactly what the previous
>> version did.
>
> It's a fair point.  There is probably a good case to be made for
> calling this release 1.8.
>
> But I don't think we should; the difference in build and packaging
> alone are enough that I'd like to signal a clean break, if only to
> intermediaries such as distro packagers.  Of course, it would also be
> nice to have some actual visible changes in this release (playback out
> of the box, anyone?)
>
>
> Chris