[GEM-dev] rc3 thoughts

B. Bogart ben at ekran.org
Thu Apr 8 16:33:22 CEST 2004

I agree, 0.90 sounds great to me. 090 also looks good. ;)


guenter geiger wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, chris clepper wrote:
>>>>- I'm really starting to be against naming this "0.888":  we've worked
>>>>the above mentioned), surely we're at v1.0?
>>>well, as i have said before, i am afraid of "1.0"
>>>anyhow, if all (or most) of the developers prefer v1.0 then we should
>>>just make it.
>>>so chris, daniel, g?nter ?
>>I actually don't really care much about the version number as long as
>>there is some sort of official release that we can point people to and
>>say 'use this'.
>>That being said, I think we could keep the <1.0 numbers if we plan to
>>do much more frequent releases.  If we decide that we can really only
>>maintain a yearly or so release schedule then major release numbering
>>starting with 1.0 makes more sense to me.  I don't think very many
>>people care about the versioning these days anyway - in fact maybe only
>>one person has asked me if 'GEM will ever get out of beta'.
> I think version numbers are just version numbers, most of the people
> won't care. Some of them might, and those are probably happier when
> we have serious version numbering instead of the "joke" release 0.888
> To give a new proposal, I am for 0.90. This sounds at least a bit stable
> and reflects the big step that gem has made after 0.87.
> Guenter
> _______________________________________________
> GEM-dev mailing list
> GEM-dev at iem.at
> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem-dev

More information about the GEM-dev mailing list