[GRASS5] Roadmap: Numbering

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 05:51:05PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 05:13:10PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > 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
> 
> >From the past experience I feel that a very details description in
> the roadmap won't be of much value. Remember the "5.1 milestones",
> it was neither agreed nor followed. I suggest to keep the roadmap
> flexible and more general.
>  
> > > > >(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.
> 
> Well, what is 6 then? A complete rewrite?
> In the GRASS history we had
> 
> - 4.x US Army + later bugfixes by GRASS Development Team
> - 5.x introduction of floating point and new sites
> 
> So
> - 6.x introduction of new vector and DMBS
> sounds somewhat logical.

Yes, it is not too bad. :)

> But I won't insist on numbers.

Me nether.

> > 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.
> 
> This is in fact an argument. We should have discussed earlier.

I thought I had raised that point in my comments on the roadmap before.
Maybe just erase that 6. from the roadmap and we'll be fine
to decide that later.

>  
> > Also the numbering is getting inflation too fast IMO.
> 
> Well, but looking at our release frequency, we'll reach 6.0 in
> some years :-)
>  
> > > 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. ;)
> 
> right.
-------------- 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/20030812/d3173e6d/attachment.bin