Hi guys, >> Personally, I think a big build up to an oddball version number like >> 1.99.5 is a little strange, but again, I'm not so hung up on version >> numbers as long as they keep increasing. It would also be odd to >> backtrack since the point of version numbers is to distinguish >> releases in some logical order.
We had a change to revert the version back to 1.8.x or something before releasing 1.99.5-rc1 thing, didn't we? >> I had in my mind that there would be a >> 1.99.x release sequence as a build up to a major v2.0 release (rather >> than 1.99.5-rcX building up to a v1.99.5 release.) So there are some >> crossed wires here that unfortunately is leading to a weird version >> number situation. And you are a person who can fix it up. >> In the meantime, I have been working on a script that will streamline >> the release process a bit. My hope is to start doing more frequent >> source releases once this major release is pushed out the door. > > For the moment, the really strange thing is that the mac version has > another numbering scheme. This is because we don't have any clear versioning policy, and I really don't want to buy such meaningless number as an official release. I thought that pushing for having clear versioning policy should be after the release, but I take it back. We really need a clear versioning policy. I already asked once or twice that we need to settle the official release number soon, but none did. That's why I stayed in 1.9.0 with respect to the result of the discussion made in this list. I already told Curt that we need to have versioning policy before going to make scripts for automatic release process. Automation for the release is basically good, but if that is the cause of using such a weird number, We better not use it. What does 5 in 1.99.5 mean? Did we release 1.99.0 or 1.99.1? No!! Please do not use such a weird meaningless version number. Curt, please think twice. I never want to buy 1.99.5 number at all. It doesn't have to be 1.9.0, but 1.99.5 is way too bad! Is it only me who thinks we are facing to very weird and confusing situation? And do you think that a different version number on FG/Mac is the cause of this? If many think so, I'm very very sad. > If we are pushing for a more frequent release > rate, maybe the -rcX thing should be skipped and fix bugs from release > to release. That also means that the aircraft list should be frozen in > order to capitalize on experience. If we have a release branch, I totally agree with this idea. Tat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
