Hi Tat et al., On Tuesday 16 December 2008 18:16:29 Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote: > 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. >
Just to make a blunt suggestion, although not completely of my own imagination: would it be an idea to release this version as 2.0?. Initially, we wanted to do a 1.9.0 release, because we felt that the OSG transition wasn't quite there yet. Since then, enormous progress has been made, in particular in the 3D clouds departments. So given this unexpected progress, would labeling this release as 2.0 be a viable option? I know that Curt's been in favor of calling this release 2.0. I initially was a bit more reluctant, but given the enormous progress, I have to say I'd be open to the suggestion. I agree with Tat that we need to think of a good versioning system for future releases. Cheers, Durk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
