Re: why no odd numbered platforms

[Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>]

<quote who="Gerald Champagne">

> Many projects release even numbered stable releases and odd numbered
> development releases, but Gnome never releases odd numbered development
> releases.  Why was the recent release called Gnome 2.0 Alpha 1 instead
> of just Gnome 1.5.0?

This is an alpha release of the GNOME 2.0 platform. Unfortunately, several
sites have reported it as something more than that, and many people have
misunderstood the intent of the release.

> I think that it would help to create an odd numbered development series
> and release more often

As it happens, the four horsemen of the apocalypse (Glib, ATK, Pango and
GTK+) have had a number of releases over the past few months, all as 1.3.x.

> By only releasing something called Alpha
> and Beta, there will be a tendency to reduce the number of releases.

Hopefully, there will be only an alpha and a beta of the GNOME 2.0 platform
libraries - these have to freeze for desktop and application developers
wanting to begin or finalise ports.

> Of course if it doesn't make sense to create a development series, then
> the next stable releases should just be called 2.0, then 2.1, instead of
> 1.0, 1.2, and 1.4.

Odd-numbered minor releases would confuse people used to the 'standard'
versioning they're used to in the free software community. Is there any
benefit to adding odd numbered releases? I can't see any worth the
confusion. :)

- Jeff

-- 
                          I am Jack's smoking gun.