My vote is for Inkscape 5, pointing to maturity of the .4x.x line, and to demonstrate overall reliability and maturity of the application.
My secondary vote, would be for Inkscape 0.91, moving toward a 1.0 release.
Overall it would be great to update a features-to-version-number page to help map where we are, and where going.
--Jared
> I wrote that in as more a placeholder, way, way back when. At the time
> we had consensus that Inkscape wasn't mature enough in terms of features
> and stability to justify calling it 1.0. I wanted to keep that as a
> goal in the roadmap, and to tie it to something tangible. SVG 1.0
> seemed like a logical place to put a pin in, but there wasn't a huge
> amount of thought put into it. It could easily have been "Switch to
> Cairo for rendering."
> > I can see the next major release after 0.48.x as a candidate for change as the "9'er" may lend itself toward a new scheme.
> >
> > * 0.49.0 --> 0.90.0 (followed by 1.0, 1.1, 2.0...)
> This sounds like a good approach. Might go to 0.91 just to avoid the
> usual confusion people have with our 0.x0 releases (i.e. people will
> call it version 0.9.
> > * 0.49.0 --> Inkscape 9 (followed by Inkscape 9.1, 10.0...)
> Seems like tooo big of a jup.
> We also discussed date based version numbers. At the time it was quite
> a fad and a lot of projects were adopting that. Seems less widely used
> now, except by projects that follow strict time-based release
> schedules, like distributions.
> > There have been a lot of excellent developments to be release in the next release, including C++, cairo, alignment/distribution along with new possible builds on win64-bit (Partha's help), and native Mac OS X (some almost-ready builds are out there). If
these all reach maturity for the release the new builds are providing an increase audience and userbase. A changing version numbering scheme could reflect the developers' acknowledgement of this and demonstrate the activity of the software project.
> Yep.
> Bryce
> >
> > Just IMHO,
> >
> > --Jared