[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On 25 Mar 2010, at 6:15 , Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> And on the subject of releases, should the monthly release schedule be kept
> up for minor releases?
Maybe, yes.
> And what constitutes a good enough reason to
> increment the major (ie the x in 5.x) version?
Good question. With 4.0/4.2 this was clear: 4.0 was bugfixes only, new features/platforms was 4.2.
> Can allegro try a new major version (5.2,5.4, etc) every 6 months regardless
> if theres an actual major change?[1]
I don't know, not sure if I like that idea. It seems pointless and leads to a rather quick inflation in version number. Also depends on what our policy is for when the number gets incremented, but "6 months have passed" is not a good criterion. Remember that 5.2 and 5.0 are not meant to be ABI compatible, which can be annoying (I don't update every time there is a release, certainly not if they are frequent and changes are small).
> And a new incremental (5.x.n) every
> month, or every two months?
That could work.
> Constant and regular releases does seem to affect the overall health of
> opensource projects. I think it has to do with perception more than
> anything, the project doesn't seem dead, so people are more willing to give
> it a shot.
True, but I never actually look at the version number, just at the date for the last release. So incrementing the minor number would be fine for that.
Evert