[GRASS5] GRASS development roadmap proposal

[Glynn Clements]

Bernhard Reiter wrote:

> 	It all only makes sense if the 5.3.x cycle is 
> 	compartively very short.

In that case, it might be better to skip the 5.3.x naming, and just
use 5.4.0-pre1, -pre2 etc.

AFAICT, that branch would just be incremental changes to 5.0.x. 
Changes which are significant enought to risk substantially breaking
compatibility with 5.0.x, but not fundamental architectural changes.

E.g.:

1. Datum transformation
2. NVIZ/OGSF updates
3. G3D updates
4. grass.postgresql "purge"

> 	Renaming 5.1/5.2 -> 5.7/5.8 has to happen early, 
> 			when communicating the whole plan

Sure; but I think that it has to be done. The gap between 5.0.x and
grass51 is too great not to have something in between. In many
regards, the changes between those two versions are more substantial
than those between 4.3 and 5.0.0.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements at virgin.net>