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

[Sharique uddin Ahmed Farooqui]

I thinks 1.2 is ok.
I calling it 2.0 would confuse the issue with .net 2.0 support.

-- 
Sharique uddin Ahmed Farooqui
(C++/C# Developer, IT Consultant)
http://www.sharique.managefolio.com/
A revolution is about to begin.
A world is about to change.
And you and me are "the initiator".

On 10/4/06, "Andrés G. Aragoneses [ knocte ]" <knocte at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Schurter escribió:
> > 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!
>
> I also agree.
>
> >>     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.
>
> I agree with Michael. BTW, can we measure approximately, in a
> percentage, the current implementation of the 2.0 profile?
>
> Regards,
>
>         Andrés  [ knocte ]
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061006/474c09aa/attachment.html