[Qgis-developer] Re: QGIS 1.0.3 is next...

[William Kyngesburye]

So, just to clarify the plan, future releases of 1.1 unstable will  
have revision version numbers?  ie 1.1.1, 1.1.2,...

And the next stable version would be 1.2?

Are you defining some alternating stable/dev version number system,  
like GRASS does?  ie major.even = stable, major.odd = dev.

On May 14, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Tim Sutton wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi
>
> Maxim Dubinin wrote:
>> JEF> I wonder who actually is interested in 1.0.
>>
>> not me ;)
>>
>
> Personally I think we should continue with two branches.
>
> a) it makes outsiders to the project see that we care about  
> stability -
> in the past a lot of people complained about new features coming out  
> all
> the time and no one taking care of just bug fixing and stabilising one
> version. I believe Paolo was one who was vocal about this too. Others
> offlist have also expressed a desire to have 'an unmoving long term
> maintained QGIS that they can provide support services around'.
>
> b) it doesn't take that much effort to maintain it
>
> c) It establishes a good working practice / culture that we can be  
> used
> to as our project matures
>
> c) sooner or later someone will commit something in trunk that breaks
> all kinds of stuff and at least we will be able to say 'its unstable
> version, if you care about stability use the stable release'
>
> and lastly
>
> d) when we get to a point where we want to do a long interval between
> unstable releases e.g. because of major refactoring, we still will  
> have
> a version that we can easily keep current with minor fixes
>
>
> So for me getting rid of the stable branch is a -1 vote.
>
> Regards
>
> Tim

-----
William Kyngesburye <kyngchaos*at*kyngchaos*dot*com>
http://www.kyngchaos.com/

All generalizations are dangerous, even this one.