[Mono-dev] Mono 1.2 or 1.somethingelse?
mattdurgavich at gmail.com
Wed Oct 4 10:31:20 EDT 2006
I'd go for 1.2. Skipping version numbers is a bad idea. So what there has
been tons of progress from 1.1, the next release is still an incremental
My two US pennies,
On 10/4/06, Michael Schurter <michael at synthesyssolutions.com> wrote:
> Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > I would even go as far as saying that we could feel confident that
> > this could be called "Mono 2.0", but 2.0 would have the unfortunate
> > effect of confusing people regarding our .net 2.0 support.
> > So am thinking that maybe we could call this "Mono 1.5", or if we
> > plan on keeping the even/odd release numbers from the kernel that we
> > could call this Mono 1.6 or 1.8
> > Opinions?
> 1.2 seems fine to me. I don't think people really care as long as new
> release number > old release number. Skipping version numbers may make
> developers feel better, but it leaves users scratching their heads about
> where 1.2-1.4 went.
> Also, 1.5 could be interpreted to mean halfway to .NET 2.0, which is in
> no way accurate.
> Don't switch horses mid-stream. ;)
> (Just my very-unimportant $0.02)
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mono-devel-list