[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Mark Mayer wrote:
> Currently in dark ages using 0.3.3.
>
> Any chance of a different version numbering system?
>
Hmmmm... I do realise that the version number is (much) too conservative.
> For example, coot-0.4-pre-1-revision-498.tar.gz is lexically greater than coot-0.4-pre-1.tar.gz, which creates headaches for (eg debian) package management systems.
I'm not sure that I completely follow. coot-0.4-pre-1.tar.gz should not
exist. All pre-releases have revision number and appear in
a different directory to the stable releases (does that help?).
The issues with python (and other things) have stalled the release
longer than I'd hoped. The point releases up to 1.0 should be coming
out every 8 or 9 weeks - giving an ETA of Coot 1.0 of late 2008/early
2009. I do think we are quite a way from 1.0 (which will be only
gtk2-based - there are still lots of gtk2 problems (as I'm sure you must
know from the console warnings and the problems like disappearing menu
items).
> Also, "pre-release" has sort of lost its distinction if using the non-pre-release is perceived (correctly, IMO) as being "in the dark ages."
>
Hmmm... It is not my perception that using non-pre-release is in the
Dark Ages (using 0.0.x *is* Dark Ages). I imagine that most Coot users
are not using a pre-release.
> [snip: version numbering]
Just yesterday I was listening to a podcast with Aaron Seigo talk about
just this sort of thing. Interesting. But for the moment, I'll stick to
conventional releases. After 1.0 I'll review the situation.
Paul.
|