Jeremy> The question, then, is whether some amount of incompatible
Jeremy> change is acceptable in the 2.1 release.
I think of 2.1 as a minor release. Minor releases generally equate in my
mind with bug fixes, not significant functionality changes or potential
compatibility problems. I think many other people feel the same way.
Earlier this month I suggested that adopting a release numbering scheme
similar to that used for the Linux kernel would be appropriate. Perhaps
it's not so much the details of the numbering as the up-front statement of
something like, "version numbers like x.y where y is even represent stable
releases" or, "backwards incompatibility will only be introduced when the
major version number is incremented". It's more that there is a statement
about stability vs new features that serves as a published committment the
user community can rely on. After all the changes that made it into 2.0, I
don't think anyone to have to address compatibility problems with 2.1.
Skip
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4