On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:09:03PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote: > Can we release a 2.6.0-rc1 and move on? Then while some would > maintain it until a real 2.6.0, some would be working on 2.7. For the > volunteers it's a matter of deciding to either help on perfecting > 2.6.0 or on improving 2.7.0.
I wouldn't advise this, since all that is doing is playing "version numbers" games without there being any forethought or intent behind that move, other than to fit some psychological need that 2.6.0 *has* to be released soon. Many things have yet to be done -- that's evident all over the place, based what is in the TODO file, and what has already resulted from previous discussions on this list. What would probably have to happen before 2.6.0 is even thought about is a brain-storming idea, and prioritising those features currently out standing, or in the current 2.5.X tree that need fixing/improving. And be warned: it's going to take *a lot* of work. I had always hoped that when 2.6.0 hit, that would more or less mark the starting point for what the (very distant) FVWM3 might become. So the question is this: before all the numbers change in terms of versioning, and the happy-go-lucky followers of "higher numbers means better software" jump on their bandwagon, what needs doing? > The way things are, the project either dies or someone forks it. It's > not going forward if we don't allow it to. Welcome to the wonderful world of $REAL_LIFE. Things, alas, get in the way. -- Thomas Adam -- "If I were a witch's hat, sitting on her head like a paraffin stove, I'd fly away and be a bat." -- Incredible String Band.
