[gdal-dev] Which version number for the next GDAL release : 1.10 or 2.0 ?

[Ben Discoe]

+1 to everything Ragi said.

Version "numbering" like "1.10" is an affront to common sense and the basic
concept of the decimal system, not to mention every OS's filename sorting.
If 1.10 comes after 1.9, then it would be imperative to replace the
misleading decimal points (which are, apparently, NOT decimal points) with
some other punctuation (like 1-9, 1-10) to avoid confusion on precedence,
and even that doesn't address the sorting mess.

Enough changes have occurred since 1.0 (I know, since I was in fact using
GDAL then).
Please just call it 2.0 now.

-Ben

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdal-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:gdal-dev-
> bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of rburhum
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 7:59 AM
> To: gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] Which version number for the next GDAL release :
> 1.10 or 2.0 ?
> 
> Perhaps calling it 2.0 is not a bad thing and it sounds of less of a
hassle.
> Breaking the ABI (by rushing major API changes) just so that the semantics
of
> what "2.0" means, seems inappropriate. If/when the unification starts, we
> could bump it to 3.0, 4.0 or any other number. There are quite a few of
them
> we could use :p
> 
> my two cents,
> 
> Ragi