On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 10:32 -0800, chromatic wrote: > If people are going to read that information into our version numbers, our > version numbers should reflect that. > > To make the jump from 2.0 to 2.5 in six months work, we have to say, *right > now*, that one of the releases will contain only "minor improvements", > whatever that means. Is anyone here willing to predict what we'll have ready > with that degree of confidence a year in advance? Numerically, this scheme > *does not work*. It does not fit how we work, and it does not reflect how we > release software and the promises we make about future versions of that > software.
Hear, hear! > If we absolutely *must* have real numbers as version numbers, I hereby donate > a nickel to the Parrot foundation so that we can buy more real numbers and > bump up the major version every six months, thereby solving the "What's the > deprecation policy?" question and the "Should I upgrade?" question and the > "There aren't enough real numbers between 0 and 5!" problem. I'll match that donation. -'f _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
