[ghemical-devel] Re: about versions and organizing tasks

Tommi Hassinen thassine at messi.uku.fi
Wed Apr 5 08:50:04 EDT 2006

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Geoffrey Hutchison wrote:

> Well, I'm certainly willing to "take over" for v2.0. If Donald would like to 
> join me, great!

Ok, sounds great!  :)

> One thing I'd like to do is make a VERSION_2_BRANCH for libghemical too. I 
> know Tommi assures me that libghemical HEAD won't break things, but I think 
> it's safer and can let Tommi and others change libghemical HEAD without 
> worrying about breaking things.

Perhaps it would confuse users less if always a pair of ghemical / 
libghemical packages were released together (also for 2.0x service 
releases in future). This would support your idea about branching 
libghemical tree as well.

>> Let's just solve the issues like Å/nm and configuration dialog so that the 
>> version jump would be as small as possible.
> I don't think a version jump matters much. Many users seem to think 1.0x is 
> the current release, so I personally don't think it matters whether HEAD 
> becomes 2.1 or 3.0 or Ghemical MegaServer 2008. (Ha!)

I agree ; the cvs HEAD version may be called 2.1 or whatever, we will see 
that later.

> What I think is important is that we have some longer-term plans, think about 
> what sorts of changes we'd like to make, and if needed to make branches 
> before any sort of huge source changes. After all, the next few releases are 
> likely to come from the VERSION_2_BRANCH, e.g. 2.0.0, 2.0.1...

Yep, we probably will need several releases from VERSION_2_BRANCH before 
HEAD is ready for wider consumption.



More information about the ghemical-devel mailing list