Philippe Michel <philippe.mich...@sfr.fr> writes: > I don't know if this is how it is seen in software engineering, but for > me releases imply some kind of roadmap ("We'll implement this and this > and that and call it 1.0"). There is no such thing for gnubg.
I don't think those of us who would like some sort of release or version number are asking for anything to change about the development process other than periodically putting a version number on things. Having long-term roadmaps is often rare in the free software community, particularly with projects that have been around for a while and which already fairly completely implement their core functionality (as is the case with gnubg). Version numbers are mostly used as a signaling mechanism: this source code is not in the middle of any sort of disruptive change and we believe is stable and basically superior to the previous releases of the software, so those who aren't involved in development should feel free to update to it. For example, if you slapped a version number on each version for which someone felt inspired to provide new "official" Windows binaries, that would probably be about right. -- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list Bug-gnubg@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg