Re: The next Gnome Office release.

Oh.

In that case, for my post, s/minor/micro/g.

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 21:47 -0500, Mark Gilbert wrote:
> I know I'm being a prick but let's make sure everything's clear here
> because it apparently isn't:
> MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO.NANO.PICO, right coders?
> 
> On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 20:21, Charles Goodwin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 19:17 -0500, David Bolack wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 18:31, Charles Goodwin wrote:
> > > > I think that every time a GO application gets a minor version bump, we
> > > > should quiety bump the GO version number.
> > > 
> > > I'm of the firm opinion that GO should only bump when two or more
> > > components do a minor stable revision. ( 1.2 to 1.4 etc ) and *only*
> > > then.  If depends change/increase, or revisions are *major* then go up a
> > > whole number.
> > > 
> > > Non-geeks really get a little confused by the layers of subversions.
> > 
> > What part of the word 'quietly' didn't you understand? ;)
> > 
> > I don't think it should be announced unless it's really important.
> > 
> > But I think it's important to diligently update GO with each GO app
> > release because every incremental minor application release usually
> > fixes blocker or crasher bugs that will cause people problems.
> > 
> > By quietly upping the minor version number, we'll be ensuring that
> > people new to GO will be acquiring the _latest_ stable versions of
> > applications and hence getting the best possible experience.
> > 
> > It will also give us a way to keep older GO versions up to date.  Whilst
> > we might be working with the 1.2.x releases, we could keep 1.1.x
> > releases coming out for the sake of people who are (to whatever degree)
> > dependent on the 1.1.x set of GO applications.
> > 
> > Oh well, I've made my point.  Just an idea.

-- 
- Charlie

Charles Goodwin <[email protected]>
Online @ http://www.charlietech.com