I thinks 1.2 is ok.I calling it 2.0 would confuse the issue with .net 2.0 support.-- Sharique uddin Ahmed Farooqui(C++/C# Developer, IT Consultant)http://www.sharique.managefolio.com/
A revolution is about to begin.A world is about to change.And you and me are the initiator.
On 10/4/06, Andrés G.
Hello,
We have always been thinking that the next release of Mono would be
1.2 which would flag an incremental update to Mono 1.0, but this is a
relatively large update as it contains a lot of functionality that was
not in Mono 1.0.
I would even go as far as saying that we could feel
Hi,
I'd agree that calling it 2.0 would confuse the issue with .net 2.0 support
My (unimportant) 2 cents ;p
Martin
On 10/4/06, Miguel de Icaza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
We have always been thinking that the next release of Mono would be
1.2 which would flag an incremental
Miguel de Icaza wrote:
So am thinking that maybe we could call this Mono 1.5, or if we
plan on keeping the even/odd release numbers from the kernel that we
could call this Mono 1.6 or 1.8
v1.5 would get my vote, odd/even IMO is not ver applicable here as
stable versions seems to be points
Miguel de Icaza wrote:
I would even go as far as saying that we could feel confident that
this could be called Mono 2.0, but 2.0 would have the unfortunate
effect of confusing people regarding our .net 2.0 support.
Agreed!
So am thinking that maybe we could call this Mono 1.5, or
I'd go for 1.2. Skipping version numbers is a bad idea. So what there has been tons of progress from 1.1, the next release is still an incremental one.My two US pennies, - Matt
On 10/4/06, Michael Schurter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Miguel de Icaza wrote: I would even go as far as saying that we
Michael Schurter escribió:
Miguel de Icaza wrote:
I would even go as far as saying that we could feel confident that
this could be called Mono 2.0, but 2.0 would have the unfortunate
effect of confusing people regarding our .net 2.0 support.
Agreed!
I also agree.
So am thinking
