mhampton wrote: > > One thing that was mentioned on another thread is that the version > number for sage-4.1.2 was quite misleading. It would help a lot if > the version numbers were more grounded in reality. One simple change > might be to not pick the version number until a final release has been > decided on. Perhaps we could call the next release "sage-next" until > it is finalized. >
+1 > Another idea, but one that requires more effort, would be to have some > sort of "LTS" release, for which only bugfixes would be applied. I > don't want to personally volunteer to do that, but I think it would be > great if someone else did :) If someone wanted to volunteer, then +1. However, this will probably not realistically happen any time soon; Just disentangling bugfixes from feature enhancements will be a job, as often they are included in the same patch. Sage development is still pretty rapid. I can see this easily being a full-time job. > > The easiest thing, which I hope can be implemented, is to highlight > former releases that seem especially stable as Maurizio suggests. > Somehow the wording needs to be picked to not say "the current release is not stable; don't use it", but rather something like "major changes were made in this release; you might find some corners that still need polishing" I agree that a more consistent and coherent version number strategy would help a lot here. Jason -- Jason Grout --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
