That sounds great. It'll def create some buzz.  But I hope that it wouldn't  make it so shiny and attractive that people jump on it before some it's really stable enough to want wide-spread testing.  

 One of the first things I get asked is why, after all these years, is there no v1.0 yet? My answer mirrors what is on the web site, but I wonder if calling .93 1.0-alpha, because of long standing pent-up anticipation, might be a teeny bit premature?  

But wow, If it feels like that's really where were at, that's super duper exciting.  :D

 

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:50 PM Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...> wrote:

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