I am very keen to see HWPF move out of scratchpad, it seems to have a lot of momentum recently. I was about to write a mail on this, Ryan beat me to it. So lets do that ASAP, i think.
We should also do a dev release with this in, but I am -1 to calling it a 2.6. And I certainly disagree to adding HWPF to a bugfix release of 2.5.1. I dont think our long-suffering users would appreciate that :)
Alternatives?
Guys, I really think we really have to get our version numbering sane. We seem to have introduced a few regressions in 2.5, tho we called it a prod release. So I am all for doing a release, but calling it dev/beta whatever. What do you think?
Absolutely. I think we all agree that the current way of doing things is silly. I'm really not bothered exactly what scheme we choose as long as it's sane. I figured for the 3.0 stuff we could decide on something sensible then document it as a standard.
Options:
Linux style:
Odd minor numbers for development versions. Even numbers for production versions. Major numbers when big changes happen.
Traditional:
Label things beta1, beta2 etc for development releases and full version numbers for final versions. Increase the major revision number for big changes.
Other:
???
I think I prefer traditional style but as I said I'm not really bothered.
Regards,
Glen Stampoultzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/
