No subject

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.

But I won't insist on numbers.

> 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.
 
> 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.

Markus