Hi,
just one very quick and possibly stupid idea. How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0? This would be just numbering change, not some milestone based on features that have to be implemented (similarly to renumbering linux kernel from 2.6.x to 3.0).
Rationale: the 0.xx versioning scheme makes an impression that Geany is something very unstable that crashes every five minutes and whose first release was made a few months back. Instead, Geany is a very stable and reliable editor with lots of features and several years of history.
I know there are some 1.0 TODOs here:
http://www.geany.org/Documentation/ToDo
like the ABI stability for plugins and other features. But
1. Will the ABI be ever considered stable? Is it really needed? (All the plugins I know are open source and the combined plugin project is kept in sync with the development release so there's no real problem even if the API changes).
2. I think there's no need to require some specific features for the 1.0 release. The current set of features makes already a very good editor and extra features can always be introduced in later versions.
I already find Geany more usable for my needs than editors having 2011 as their version number so I believe it deserves the 1 prefix. What is your opinion?
Cheers, Jiri
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:07:23 +0200 Jiří Techet techet@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
just one very quick and possibly stupid idea. How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0? This would be just numbering change, not some milestone based on features that have to be implemented (similarly to renumbering linux kernel from 2.6.x to 3.0).
Rationale: the 0.xx versioning scheme makes an impression that Geany is something very unstable that crashes every five minutes and whose first release was made a few months back. Instead, Geany is a very stable and reliable editor with lots of features and several years of history.
I know there are some 1.0 TODOs here:
http://www.geany.org/Documentation/ToDo
like the ABI stability for plugins and other features. But
- Will the ABI be ever considered stable? Is it really needed? (All
the plugins I know are open source and the combined plugin project is kept in sync with the development release so there's no real problem even if the API changes).
- I think there's no need to require some specific features for the
1.0 release. The current set of features makes already a very good editor and extra features can always be introduced in later versions.
I already find Geany more usable for my needs than editors having 2011 as their version number so I believe it deserves the 1 prefix. What is your opinion?
As a quiet reader of this mailing list and (very) occasional contributor, I agree wholeheartedly. I've been using geany as my principle IDE for the last 4 years, the last three of which have been spent as a professional developer. Firefox (now on version 4) crashes at least twice a week (although mainly due to Flash). Netbeans (version 7.0) ties itself in a knot at least once a week, while consuming all available resources. OpenOffice (version 3) will occasionally just vanish without even an error message, sheepishly offering me the chance to recover documents on restart. Through all of this geany goes from reboot to reboot without dropping a byte. I think it's time to recognise that! :-)
Jon
On 20 September 2011 20:14, Jon Senior jon@restlesslemon.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:07:23 +0200 Jiří Techet techet@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
just one very quick and possibly stupid idea. How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0? This would be just numbering change, not some milestone based on features that have to be implemented (similarly to renumbering linux kernel from 2.6.x to 3.0).
Rationale: the 0.xx versioning scheme makes an impression that Geany is something very unstable that crashes every five minutes and whose first release was made a few months back. Instead, Geany is a very stable and reliable editor with lots of features and several years of history.
I agree with this argument, I tend to introduce Geany anywhere I have a contract and one of the first reactions is always "But its just a fractional version number". And I know when I am looking for software I want to use I tend to have the same reaction. Following the Kernels example and going to 1.0 or better yet 1.1 would be a good idea. And it is likely to attract more contributors since it doesn't look like the project is just starting.
Cheers Lex
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 13:02, Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 September 2011 20:14, Jon Senior jon@restlesslemon.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:07:23 +0200 Jiří Techet techet@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
just one very quick and possibly stupid idea. How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0? This would be just numbering change, not some milestone based on features that have to be implemented (similarly to renumbering linux kernel from 2.6.x to 3.0).
Rationale: the 0.xx versioning scheme makes an impression that Geany is something very unstable that crashes every five minutes and whose first release was made a few months back. Instead, Geany is a very stable and reliable editor with lots of features and several years of history.
I agree with this argument, I tend to introduce Geany anywhere I have a contract and one of the first reactions is always "But its just a fractional version number". And I know when I am looking for software I want to use I tend to have the same reaction. Following the Kernels example and going to 1.0 or better yet 1.1 would be a good idea. And it is likely to attract more contributors since it doesn't look like the project is just starting.
Or 1.21 - i.e. raise the "stability flag" in the first digit but continue with current numbering after the dot. The message would be "we consider Geany stable but the current release is just an incremental release".
Cheers, Jiri
Jon Senior wrote:
[...] Firefox (now on version 4) crashes at least twice a week (although mainly due to Flash). [...]
OT, but: Firefox 4.x is a nasty pile of alpha-ware (at least, on Linux x86-64). 5.x wasn't much better. Upgrade to 6.02 for something more stable. Firefox 4.0 drove me to use Chrome as my primary browser, although 6.02 is stable enough that I might even switch back by 7 (or 8.. or 9.. or..) (and I still use Firefox for development because nothing can touch Firebug)
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Jon Senior jon@restlesslemon.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:07:23 +0200 Jiří Techet techet@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
just one very quick and possibly stupid idea. How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0? This would be just numbering change, not some milestone based on features that have to be implemented (similarly to renumbering linux kernel from 2.6.x to 3.0).
Rationale: the 0.xx versioning scheme makes an impression that Geany is something very unstable that crashes every five minutes and whose first release was made a few months back. Instead, Geany is a very stable and reliable editor with lots of features and several years of history.
I know there are some 1.0 TODOs here:
http://www.geany.org/Documentation/ToDo
like the ABI stability for plugins and other features. But
- Will the ABI be ever considered stable? Is it really needed? (All
the plugins I know are open source and the combined plugin project is kept in sync with the development release so there's no real problem even if the API changes).
- I think there's no need to require some specific features for the
1.0 release. The current set of features makes already a very good editor and extra features can always be introduced in later versions.
I already find Geany more usable for my needs than editors having 2011 as their version number so I believe it deserves the 1 prefix. What is your opinion?
As a quiet reader of this mailing list and (very) occasional contributor, I agree wholeheartedly. I've been using geany as my principle IDE for the last 4 years, the last three of which have been spent as a professional developer. Firefox (now on version 4) crashes at least twice a week (although mainly due to Flash). Netbeans (version 7.0) ties itself in a knot at least once a week, while consuming all available resources. OpenOffice (version 3) will occasionally just vanish without even an error message, sheepishly offering me the chance to recover documents on restart. Through all of this geany goes from reboot to reboot without dropping a byte. I think it's time to recognise that! :-)
+1. But I needed to learn C for some program of mine which uses GTK+. So I hope to look through the code and contribute to Geany :)
Jon _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Hi,
Am 20.09.2011 12:07, schrieb Jiří Techet:
just one very quick and possibly stupid idea. How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0?
To make it short: As we are about two weeks ahead of next release I disagree. After 0.21 release we got a lot of structural changes we might could think about a 1.0 too, but I don't feel its needed at the moment.
Cheers, Frank
On 20 September 2011 21:23, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Hi,
Am 20.09.2011 12:07, schrieb Jiří Techet:
just one very quick and possibly stupid idea. How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0?
To make it short: As we are about two weeks ahead of next release I disagree. After 0.21 release we got a lot of structural changes we might could think about a 1.0 too, but I don't feel its needed at the moment.
I have to disagree with you on this Frank, the version number is nothing to do with structural or technical issues, it is a project issue. Changing the version number doesn't affect translation or anything else that takes time to do, so it isn't going to delay the release.
As shallow as it may seem to us technical people, that something like the version number is important, it is part of the image that Geany uses to attract assistance to the project, and that is important to us. And as such should reflect the fact that Geany is a mature product.
Cheers Lex
Am Di, 20.09.2011, 13:43 schrieb Lex Trotman:
On 20 September 2011 21:23, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Hi,
Am 20.09.2011 12:07, schrieb Ji?í Techet:
just one very quick and possibly stupid idea. How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0?
To make it short: As we are about two weeks ahead of next release I disagree. After 0.21 release we got a lot of structural changes we might could think about a 1.0 too, but I don't feel its needed at the moment.
I have to disagree with you on this Frank, the version number is nothing to do with structural or technical issues, it is a project issue. Changing the version number doesn't affect translation or anything else that takes time to do, so it isn't going to delay the release.
I agree. There's no reason to wait until after the upcoming release. 1.0: the earlier, the better.
This release should be the most stable one ever made, so 1.0 is even more justified. 0.X simply isn't justified anymore. It sounds like Geany was alpha software, but it has indeed better release quality that the majority of software out there.
Best regards.
Hi
But why only 1.0?
GNOME 3.* KDE 4.* Scite 2.*
What about Geany 3000? Or some kind of other stupid release name like ''busel', 'verabei', 'krumkach' ...
Best regards, Yura Siamashka
On 20/09/2011, Thomas Martitz thomas.martitz@student.htw-berlin.de wrote:
Am Di, 20.09.2011, 13:43 schrieb Lex Trotman:
On 20 September 2011 21:23, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Hi,
Am 20.09.2011 12:07, schrieb Ji?í Techet:
just one very quick and possibly stupid idea. How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0?
To make it short: As we are about two weeks ahead of next release I disagree. After 0.21 release we got a lot of structural changes we might could think about a 1.0 too, but I don't feel its needed at the moment.
I have to disagree with you on this Frank, the version number is nothing to do with structural or technical issues, it is a project issue. Changing the version number doesn't affect translation or anything else that takes time to do, so it isn't going to delay the release.
I agree. There's no reason to wait until after the upcoming release. 1.0: the earlier, the better.
This release should be the most stable one ever made, so 1.0 is even more justified. 0.X simply isn't justified anymore. It sounds like Geany was alpha software, but it has indeed better release quality that the majority of software out there.
Best regards.
Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:10:34 +0300, Yura wrote:
Hi
But why only 1.0?
GNOME 3.* KDE 4.* Scite 2.*
What about Geany 3000? Or some kind of other stupid release name like ''busel', 'verabei', 'krumkach' ...
Heh, I like "krumkach", sounds in German quite funny :).
More seriously, I personally don't mind much about version numbers. It's good to have some but the actual value doesn't mean much to me. But I realise other people take more care about this and 0.x might seem not that mature to many users.
So, I'd say: why not.
Regards, Enrico
Le 20/09/2011 23:26, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:10:34 +0300, Yura wrote:
Hi
But why only 1.0?
GNOME 3.* KDE 4.* Scite 2.*
What about Geany 3000? Or some kind of other stupid release name like ''busel', 'verabei', 'krumkach' ...
Heh, I like "krumkach", sounds in German quite funny :).
BTW, how are Geany codenames chosen? :-'
More seriously, I personally don't mind much about version numbers. It's good to have some but the actual value doesn't mean much to me. But I realise other people take more care about this and 0.x might seem not that mature to many users.
So, I'd say: why not.
I'd say quite the same. I don't really mind, and it seems it's something important for many of you so...
Regards, Colomban
Am 22.09.2011 15:28, schrieb Colomban Wendling:
Le 20/09/2011 23:26, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:10:34 +0300, Yura wrote:
Hi
But why only 1.0?
GNOME 3.* KDE 4.* Scite 2.*
What about Geany 3000? Or some kind of other stupid release name like ''busel', 'verabei', 'krumkach' ...
Heh, I like "krumkach", sounds in German quite funny :).
BTW, how are Geany codenames chosen? :-'
More seriously, I personally don't mind much about version numbers. It's good to have some but the actual value doesn't mean much to me. But I realise other people take more care about this and 0.x might seem not that mature to many users.
So, I'd say: why not.
I'd say quite the same. I don't really mind, and it seems it's something important for many of you so...
But can we do it post 0.21? Only one week left and I want to concentrate on improving translation etc. instead of search&replace version numbers.
Cheers, Frank
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 15:34, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 22.09.2011 15:28, schrieb Colomban Wendling:
Le 20/09/2011 23:26, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:10:34 +0300, Yura wrote:
Hi
But why only 1.0?
GNOME 3.* KDE 4.* Scite 2.*
What about Geany 3000? Or some kind of other stupid release name like ''busel', 'verabei', 'krumkach' ...
Heh, I like "krumkach", sounds in German quite funny :).
BTW, how are Geany codenames chosen? :-'
More seriously, I personally don't mind much about version numbers. It's good to have some but the actual value doesn't mean much to me. But I realise other people take more care about this and 0.x might seem not that mature to many users.
So, I'd say: why not.
I'd say quite the same. I don't really mind, and it seems it's something important for many of you so...
But can we do it post 0.21? Only one week left and I want to concentrate on improving translation etc. instead of search&replace version numbers.
Hi Frank,
if it should cause problems, of course it can wait, it was just a suggestion...
...on the other hand I've just tried to make the renaming from 0.21 to 1.21 and it isn't too hard to do and doesn't seem to be very intrusive - see the attached patches both for Geany and geany-plugins. The only missing things are:
1. The documentation should be regenerated 2. Version should be updated in *.po files (I didn't do it because you'll be receiving po files from translators with version 0.21 now and it will be easiest to update all of them at once before the release) 3. The version number change should be mentioned in ChangeLog/NEWS
Cheers,
Jiri
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:28:21 +0200 Colomban Wendling lists.ban@herbesfolles.org wrote:
What about Geany 3000? Or some kind of other stupid release name like ''busel', 'verabei', 'krumkach' ...
Heh, I like "krumkach", sounds in German quite funny :).
BTW, how are Geany codenames chosen? :-'
My list just uses belarussian birds names: stork(busel), sparrow(verabei), raven(krumkach)
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:28:21 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Le 20/09/2011 23:26, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:10:34 +0300, Yura wrote:
Hi
But why only 1.0?
GNOME 3.* KDE 4.* Scite 2.*
What about Geany 3000? Or some kind of other stupid release name like ''busel', 'verabei', 'krumkach' ...
Heh, I like "krumkach", sounds in German quite funny :).
BTW, how are Geany codenames chosen? :-'
If I tell you, I'll have to kill you...
More seriously (though not much), the codenames are just taken from names of Moffs[1] and Grand Moffs from the Star Wars Universe :).
[1] http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Moff
Feel free to change the naming scheme for future releases or even drop the codenames. They have absolutely no relevance at all. So far, they only expressed my fondness for Star Wars :).
Regards, Enrico
Le 22/09/2011 23:00, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:28:21 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Le 20/09/2011 23:26, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:10:34 +0300, Yura wrote:
Hi
But why only 1.0?
GNOME 3.* KDE 4.* Scite 2.*
What about Geany 3000? Or some kind of other stupid release name like ''busel', 'verabei', 'krumkach' ...
Heh, I like "krumkach", sounds in German quite funny :).
BTW, how are Geany codenames chosen? :-'
If I tell you, I'll have to kill you...
Oh... then perhaps keep the info secret ;)
More seriously (though not much), the codenames are just taken from names of Moffs[1] and Grand Moffs from the Star Wars Universe :).
[1] http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Moff
Feel free to change the naming scheme for future releases or even drop the codenames. They have absolutely no relevance at all. So far, they only expressed my fondness for Star Wars :).
I like codenames, they give a mysterious aura nobody needs to really know about :p -- unfortunately I just broke the magic :/
I'm no Star Wars fan [1], but I could suggest some other funny mysterious names like Aranarth, Arahel, Ostoher or Ciryandil...
But honestly I see no problem continuing to call releases the same way as before if you provides the names ^^
Cheers, Colomban
[1] here I should probably say something like "I'm a Star Trek, Star Wars just sucks" to start a flamewar... unfortunately it's not true :(
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:24:55 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Le 22/09/2011 23:00, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:28:21 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Le 20/09/2011 23:26, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:10:34 +0300, Yura wrote:
Hi
But why only 1.0?
GNOME 3.* KDE 4.* Scite 2.*
What about Geany 3000? Or some kind of other stupid release name like ''busel', 'verabei', 'krumkach' ...
Heh, I like "krumkach", sounds in German quite funny :).
BTW, how are Geany codenames chosen? :-'
If I tell you, I'll have to kill you...
Oh... then perhaps keep the info secret ;)
Too late...
More seriously (though not much), the codenames are just taken from names of Moffs[1] and Grand Moffs from the Star Wars Universe :).
[1] http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Moff
Feel free to change the naming scheme for future releases or even drop the codenames. They have absolutely no relevance at all. So far, they only expressed my fondness for Star Wars :).
I like codenames, they give a mysterious aura nobody needs to really know about :p -- unfortunately I just broke the magic :/
Haha.
I'm no Star Wars fan [1], but I could suggest some other funny
Oh oh, how could one not love Star Wars. Star Trek is somewhat ok but Star Wars is just great. Without I'd never find names for software releases, servers, workstations, domains, whatever.
mysterious names like Aranarth, Arahel, Ostoher or Ciryandil...
But honestly I see no problem continuing to call releases the same way as before if you provides the names ^^
I don't mind. I'd happy to provide further names but also would be happy to see any other naming scheme for the codenames. As we are going to bump the version number for no such a great reason, let's reason it like 'new codename choosing scheme' :).
Regards, Enrico
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 20.09.2011 12:07, schrieb Jiří Techet:
just one very quick and possibly stupid idea. How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0?
To make it short: As we are about two weeks ahead of next release I disagree. After 0.21 release we got a lot of structural changes we might could think about a 1.0 too, but I don't feel its needed at the moment.
I would agree with most on this thread that Geany deserves a 1.0. However, we could compromise: bump numbering to 0.9.0, and then see what comes next. Maybe the main devels feel that 1.0 is warranted, or we wait for structural changes to happen.
Regards Liviu
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:07:23 +0200 Jiří Techet techet@gmail.com wrote:
How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0?
+1.0 :) Much more reliable that my primary IDE, which is version 5.
Though I'd prefer to see stash-tree-display-5923.diff (from the last ("Various pref changes not ignored on dialog cancel" message) before that. use_safe_file_saving was renamed, so it won't be nice to leave the last known various prefs problem hanging.
Le 20/09/2011 12:07, Jiří Techet a écrit :
Hi,
Hey,
just one very quick and possibly stupid idea. How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0? This would be just numbering change, not some milestone based on features that have to be implemented (similarly to renumbering linux kernel from 2.6.x to 3.0).
[...]
Next Geany release is very near (2011-10-01 or 2011-10-02 UTC), and since the thread seems to show nobody is strongly against a versioning change and some seems to think it's a very good idea, I think it's time to make a decision.
I've created a Doodle poll [1][2], and I invite everyone to give his/her opinion. Note that there are 9 possible options, make sure you see all them ;) The final choice will be made just before releasing, but it's close so don't postpone if you want to give your opinion.
Also if you think it's not time for a change but you also think that after 0.21 it'd be good, please still vote for 0.21 -- I didn't wanted (or forgot? :D) to add this to the poll yet not to confuse it.
Finally, if you choose "something else", you could perhaps elaborate by responding to this mail :)
If we get a significant amount of participation [3] and some kind of consensus, I think we could apply it for the release.
Cheers, Colomban
[1] http://www.doodle.com/xih6mvzvca5chqa7 [2] since it seems to be the way other does such things here ^^ [3] where "significant" is an arbitrary number
On 09/29/2011 02:59 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Finally, if you choose "something else", you could perhaps elaborate by responding to this mail :)
2.10 (ie. 0.21 * 10) - because it matches closer to the GTK+ and Scintilla versions.
Also, 2.21 (ie. 0.21 + 2) would be fine for the same reasons.
But TBH, it doesn't really matter to me what the version number is.
Cheers, Matthew Brush
Le 30/09/2011 03:08, Matthew Brush a écrit :
On 09/29/2011 02:59 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Finally, if you choose "something else", you could perhaps elaborate by responding to this mail :)
2.10 (ie. 0.21 * 10) - because it matches closer to the GTK+ and Scintilla versions.
Also, 2.21 (ie. 0.21 + 2) would be fine for the same reasons.
2.1(0) is already used by some users that don't remember where the dot is :D But yeah, makes sense.
Though, I think both (and especially second) are too different and then mostly shows a versionning scheme change rather than something like stability flag.
Cheers, Colomban
2.1(0) is already used by some users that don't remember where the dot
Haha !
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Colomban Wendling lists.ban@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Le 30/09/2011 03:08, Matthew Brush a écrit :
On 09/29/2011 02:59 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Finally, if you choose "something else", you could perhaps elaborate by responding to this mail :)
2.10 (ie. 0.21 * 10) - because it matches closer to the GTK+ and Scintilla versions.
Also, 2.21 (ie. 0.21 + 2) would be fine for the same reasons.
2.1(0) is already used by some users that don't remember where the dot is :D But yeah, makes sense.
Though, I think both (and especially second) are too different and then mostly shows a versionning scheme change rather than something like stability flag.
Cheers, Colomban _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
On 11-10-01 07:11 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 30/09/2011 03:08, Matthew Brush a écrit :
On 09/29/2011 02:59 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Finally, if you choose "something else", you could perhaps elaborate by responding to this mail :)
2.10 (ie. 0.21 * 10) - because it matches closer to the GTK+ and Scintilla versions.
Also, 2.21 (ie. 0.21 + 2) would be fine for the same reasons.
2.1(0) is already used by some users that don't remember where the dot is :D But yeah, makes sense.
Though, I think both (and especially second) are too different and then mostly shows a versionning scheme change rather than something like stability flag.
Anything besides 0.21 is completely arbitrary anyway :)
Cheers, Matthew Brush
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 23:59, Colomban Wendling lists.ban@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Le 20/09/2011 12:07, Jiří Techet a écrit :
Hi,
Hey,
just one very quick and possibly stupid idea. How about getting rid of the 0 version prefix and calling the next release 1.0? This would be just numbering change, not some milestone based on features that have to be implemented (similarly to renumbering linux kernel from 2.6.x to 3.0).
[...]
Next Geany release is very near (2011-10-01 or 2011-10-02 UTC), and since the thread seems to show nobody is strongly against a versioning change and some seems to think it's a very good idea, I think it's time to make a decision.
I've created a Doodle poll [1][2], and I invite everyone to give his/her opinion. Note that there are 9 possible options, make sure you see all them ;) The final choice will be made just before releasing, but it's close so don't postpone if you want to give your opinion.
Also if you think it's not time for a change but you also think that after 0.21 it'd be good, please still vote for 0.21 -- I didn't wanted (or forgot? :D) to add this to the poll yet not to confuse it.
If it's too late to bump the version number for the upcoming release, 0.21 can be used for the release and the bump to 1.0 (1.22, ...) can be done as part of post-release version increment.
My personal preference is 1.21 > 1.0 > 0.21 though. By the way, any other ordering doesn't fit mathematically and is therefore wrong. Q.E.D.
Jiri
Well well, we've got quite some votes, thanks guys!
However, we can't say there is a clear winner: 0.21 and 1.0 got the same vote count [1], but 0.21 got one more "unique" vote [2].
Le 30/09/2011 23:48, Jiří Techet a écrit :
[...]
If it's too late to bump the version number for the upcoming release, 0.21 can be used for the release and the bump to 1.0 (1.22, ...) can be done as part of post-release version increment.
I think we'll do this, because Frank thinks this way, Enrico and I are both fine with 0.21 and we're very close to the release (and upcoming release has already been named 0.21 for quite some time now).
And post release we could bump to 1.0.
My personal preference is 1.21 > 1.0 > 0.21 though. By the way, any other ordering doesn't fit mathematically and is therefore wrong. Q.E.D.
Agreed (apart perhaps Matthew's 2.1 suggestion). [3]
Regards, Colomban
[1] Liviu voted 1.0 but annotation that it should be done after 0.21. [2] As said in [1], Liviu actually voted "1.0 after 0.21". [3] But my preference is 0.21 > 1.21 > 1.0 (works the same with .22).