[Mono-dev] Mono 1.2 or 1.somethingelse?

[Matt Durgavich]

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
one.

 My two US pennies,
   - Matt

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.
>
> Agreed!
>
> >     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
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-devel-list/attachments/20061004/ea659209/attachment.html