You probably know how I feel, but I'm definitely a +1 for releasing as
1.0-alpha. It is going to create the least amount of user confusion and
help us get people excited about testing it so it's a rock-solid release.

On 04/03/2018 01:25 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:47:28PM +0000, Alex Valavanis wrote:
>> The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?).
> Yes it does; I started to at the hackfest but with the proposal to
> rejigger things I felt like we need to seek a broader consensus about
> this course of action, first.
>
> But, if no one raises any major objections I will go ahead and finish
> cleaning it up.  I have a bunch of other little matters to tend to first
> (plus getting caught up at work).
>
> Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may
> feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the
> public.
>
> Bryce
>
>> Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, and
>> anything that involves new features will be after.
>>
>> AV
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...233.....400...> wrote:
>>
>>> Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the
>>> first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now
>>> until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0.
>>> Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no
>>> intermediate stable release.
>>>
>>> If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start
>>> shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we
>>> announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond
>>> to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to
>>> happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready,
>>> or they will have a very bad experience!
>>>
>>> ... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will
>>> be for use only by bleeding-edge testers.
>>>
>>> Hope that help!
>>>
>>>
>>> AV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, <
>>> christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and
>>>> your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and
>>>> hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case
>>>> then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and
>>>> 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or
>>>> postpone those to post v1.0?
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
>>>>
>>>> 2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...3197...61...>:
>>>>
>>>>> One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap,
>>>>> looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing
>>>>> 1.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or
>>>>> functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may
>>>>> not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been
>>>>> our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to
>>>>> as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the
>>>>> 0.92.x series for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our
>>>>> software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately
>>>>> provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development
>>>>> release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or
>>>>> "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an
>>>>> alpha release for 1.0.  From there we could conduct multiple further
>>>>> pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe.
>>>>> What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among
>>>>> attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release
>>>>> expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation
>>>>> efforts.  Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for
>>>>> 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in
>>>>> branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing
>>>>> of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and
>>>>> divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require
>>>>> or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or
>>>>> reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like
>>>>> to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward.  So,
>>>>> how does this plan sound to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bryce
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>>>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Inkscape-devel mailing list
>>>>> Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christoffer Holmstedt
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Inkscape-devel mailing list
>>>> Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
>>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Inkscape-devel mailing list
>> Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Inkscape-devel mailing list
> Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel