[GRASS5] Roadmap: Numbering

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:28:56PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 12:10:05PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:32:04AM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > 
> > > > BTW, why the large gap between 5.3 and 5.7? What about 5.5? What will
> > > > the stable releases be? 5.4 and?
> > > 
> > > Please have a look at the roadmap. If unclear, we should improve the
> > > document 
> > 
> > We should include planned unstable (odd number) releases.
> 
> You mean 5.3.1 etc? Yes.

Yes 5.3.x and 5.7.x

> > >(yes, 5.4 will be the last stable version of the 5.x line):
> > > http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html
> > 
> > According to the document that would be 5.8.x 
> > unless you've meant 5.0.x. :)
> > 
> > Actually I'm against planing for 6.x as 5.10 will follow 5.9.x releases.
> 
> No, this won't be a good idea. The new vector engine is definitly
> a major change, so 6.x is appropriate.

It is a major change, no doubt.

This is only a question of naming. 
Steps like 5.6 5.8 and 5.10 should be considered major anyway.
I'd rather have to delay that question and plan on 5.10 so far,
because we gave out the word that the 5.x release will come to the
new vector format.

Also the numbering is getting inflation too fast IMO.

> But maybe 5.7 should be named 5.5 to be consequent. However, then
> it is far from number 6.

Leaving space for 5.5 and 5.6 is okay,
as we might eventually run into the problem and don't want to rename
5.9 and 5.10 again. ;)
	Bernhard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20030811/2b487a9b/attachment.bin