El 24/10/13 10:15, Krzysztof Kosiński escribió:
How about this:
- We rename Inkscape 0.49 to Inkscape 0.91
- In the next cycle, we actively work to address the two major bugs
(flowtext and coordinates) 3. When those are addressed, we release Inkscape 1.0
From 0.48 to 0.91 is a weird increment. Why not just 0.9?
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.
If none of the two major bugs are addressed for the next version, you could release 0.6 and still have place for three more versions. If they are, you can jump from 0.5 to 1.0 and it would also make sense.
Regarding using a date, I don't think it's a good idea if there are no planned releases. Autodesk and Ubuntu, for instance, use that version number scheme, but they have rather fixed release dates (Autodesk usually releases a new version of their bloatware once a year, and Ubuntu has planned releases each april and october). I don't think that numbering would work fine for projects like Inkscape. two releases in a year would look like the second is a revision of the first; one version each 3 years would look like lack of expected updates.
Gez.