I agree, 0.90 sounds great to me. 090 also looks good. ;)
B.
guenter geiger wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, chris clepper wrote:
- I'm really starting to be against naming this "0.888": we've worked
the above mentioned), surely we're at v1.0?
well, as i have said before, i am afraid of "1.0" anyhow, if all (or most) of the developers prefer v1.0 then we should just make it. so chris, daniel, g?nter ?
I actually don't really care much about the version number as long as there is some sort of official release that we can point people to and say 'use this'.
That being said, I think we could keep the <1.0 numbers if we plan to do much more frequent releases. If we decide that we can really only maintain a yearly or so release schedule then major release numbering starting with 1.0 makes more sense to me. I don't think very many people care about the versioning these days anyway - in fact maybe only one person has asked me if 'GEM will ever get out of beta'.
I think version numbers are just version numbers, most of the people won't care. Some of them might, and those are probably happier when we have serious version numbering instead of the "joke" release 0.888
To give a new proposal, I am for 0.90. This sounds at least a bit stable and reflects the big step that gem has made after 0.87.
Guenter
GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem-dev