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. Regards, Tommi