* Curtis Olson -- Thursday 29 November 2007: > Everyone seems to agree that version numbers are an arbitrary > set of numbers [...]
No, you got that backwards. From reading the thread it was clear that people consider a sane version number more important than politics, such as avoiding 0.9.11 because of the incident. Is it your commercial interests in fgfs that make you want it be called 1.0? Did someone complain? Those who use fgfs in their FAA certified simulator? We would understand it. Here's again what I consider sorely missing for a release 1.0: landing/taxi-lights. It's weird to call a simulator 1.0 if you have to let your aircraft parked in the middle of a runway after having landed at night, because you don't see anything but a few dim light points. A daylight-only simulator doesn't deserve the 1.0. :-P m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
