[Gridflow-dev] next version number ?
matju at artengine.ca
Sat Mar 27 11:30:56 EDT 2010
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Patrick Boivin wrote:
>> 0.9.8 seems good...
> My students were talking about the benefits of installing 9.7 instead of
... and it especially looks like we are never going to get to something we
will want to call « 1.0 ». On one hand you have people who expect version
numbers to start at 1.0 for a first release and increase from there. On
the other hand you have people who expect 1.0 to be the version number
corresponding to the horizon. We walk and walk but the horizon is still
over there. If we were planning 1.0 goals as non-moving targets and
achieved them in priority of everything else, then 1.0 would be happening
quick, but it would still be called just 1.0, so it would look like a new
piece of software, instead of... a software that has accumulated some
experience and aged for the better.
therefore I think it fully makes sense to pull a Solaris trick, which is
to just chop off the leading component of the version number. This is
similar to the Emacs trick, where they multiplied the (fractionary)
version number by 10. It's not like the Slackware version jump or DOS
version jump, because it's not there to make a link with the versioning of
any competing software. I just want to make our old numbering irrelevant,
yet without considering anyone else's version numbering as relevant
For now, all [doc_h] (and now [doc_demo]) say GridFlow « 1.0 », suggesting
some kind of goal we're about to reach... and I'm wondering what I could
be writing instead of « 1.0 ».
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
More information about the Gridflow-dev