On 28.05.2010 10:23, CooSoft Support wrote: > I couldn't agree more with Thomas's point about Monotone dying if we are > not careful. It's a psychological thing. `Oh it's only at 0.xxx - still > unstable'.
Sure it's psychological and nowadays in the age of OSS, versioning schemes or rather the progress of their numbers are often not really expressive. Wine took 10 years to release 1.0 and noone really cared in the end, because it has been working for ages before. On the other hand I've seen software for example in a 5.x version and was hugely wondering what that thing did the four major versions before. People shouldn't look at the numbers of the version but rather on the feature list on the project's website. Maybe somewhere on that website there should be included a sentence like "We use it all the time and no problems so far". Like Jack, I personally use Monotone for all my work stuff, source codes, server configs, etc. My lady is using Monotone for her thesis. No problems ever, so count that as +2 from here :-) One problem of a 1.0 or 1.0.0 release could be, that the more sophisticated users from bigger development groups, which then start to use monotone because of the major release, often stick to a version they chose in the beginning of a project. Of course they still want to have bugfix releases, but by no means they want breakage in the API or interface or whatever applies. I've seen this happen on another project I accompanied a while ago. As soon as they put out 1.0 there only came bugfix releases afterwards, although many requests for mostly the same improvements appeared on the mailing list and the excuse always was like "No we don't do that, because then we would break with the big guys". Does Monotone have the power to support two branches, so that new and needed features don't get stalled? Just a few thoughts :-) Philipp _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel