2013/10/24 Josh Andler <scislac@...400...>:
That sounds like a solid compromise imho... especially if the cycle is dedicated to those two things and bug fixes (NO NEW FEATURES). As it would be possible to get a release out relatively fast if those were purely the focus. I'm pretty sure people who have problems with either of those would say they're "special release" worthy.
The cycle doesn't have to be limited to those two features; some other work could also go in if it's completed in the same timeframe, for instance using C++11 features to prettify the code and introducing a single, cross platform build system. But those two bugs should be absolutely required for releasing 1.0, and the release should be made shortly after they're addressed. Otherwise if we want to release another major version before fixing them, we would go to 0.92.
2013/10/24 Guillermo Espertino (Gez) <gespertino@...400...>:
I think 0.5 sounds better, and gives place for four .1 increments before 1.0. After so many years of 0.4x, changing to 0.5 already communicates an important change.
Software with automatic version comparison, such as dpkg, will think that 0.5 is a lower version than 0.49, and this will make life hard for packagers. (Note that dpkg --compare-versions returns a non-zero status when the condition is false.)
$ dpkg --compare-versions 0.5 ge 0.49 $ echo $? 1
After 0.91, we can release 0.92 if the two bugs are still not fixed (but I hope it won't come to that).
Regards, Krzysztof