[ODE] 0.8.2 candidate

[Jon Watte (ODE)]

I think 0.9 is fine. We could then focus on filling in the blanks for 
1.0, and getting a 1.0 out the door. Given that ODE is, what, 15 years 
old now, it might be time :-)

Cheers,

          / h+


Bram Stolk wrote:
>
>
> On 9/27/07, *Jason Perkins* <starkos at gmail.com 
> <mailto:starkos at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 9/27/07, Bram Stolk <b.stolk at gmail.com
>     <mailto:b.stolk at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > We need to release a candidate for 0.8.2
>
>     I will get to it ASAP, and I will label it 0.8.2...but I'm going to 
>
>
> Thanks mate.
>
>     let you handle all of the inevitable "where's 0.8.1?" questions.   :)
>
>
>
> Sure thing.
> After I have answered it 3 times in this list, I will make it a faq.
> Let's see if it gets to be a faq  entry :-)
>
>
>     I realize version numbers are more or less arbitrary, but is there
>     some rationale behind adding another digit instead of going to 0.9?
>     (0.5 -> 0.6 -> 0.7 -> 0.8 -> 0.8.2 ??)
>
>
> Well, the rationale is that it leaves us some space to 1.0 ?
> We can go to 0.9 if you prefer that.
> The long list of changes may warrant a higher bump in version?
>
> 1.0 sounds like a good version nr for a really stable, proven and 
> established release.
> 2.0 would be the thing to use once we break API compatibility.
> Did ODE ever break API compatibility before? If we do, we get to clean 
> up this ugly convention of adding a '2' to several functions if they 
> behave slightly different. Yuck!
>
>   bram
>
>
>     Jason
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Zapp: Captain's log, stardate...er..
> Kif: Ohhh. April 13th.
> Zapp: April 13th. Point 2.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ODE mailing list
> ODE at ode.org
> http://ode.org/mailman/listinfo/ode