On Jun 11, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Martin Owens wrote:
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 10:35 -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
Jon mentioned potential of 4.9
The version number is as much part of the brand as the name Inkscape and while it's fun for developers to have 0.49, what we're really calling it is 'Inkscape 49th attempt but not quite there'.
It's time to take the version number seriously, +1 to the proposed. Either 2.9 or 11 (per year) or 11.10 (more than one per year)
Of course we still don't support full SVG 1.1 spec, but then neither does anyone else.
So I think we're at a good decision point. First it seems clear that we do need to bump up the version and declare things ready for prime time.
Second, I think the year based scheme should be what we go with. A different numbering scheme could work, but if we move it forward then we lose the semantics of the major/minor compatibility issue that is so handy. On the other hand, a year based version clearly communicates to users when it was released, and how old it is getting.
Internally we can keep a compatibility version going, but externally we can focus on the 11.10 style. That also can help once we hit three or more releases per year.