<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Cristian Oneţ <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:onet.cristian@gmail.com">onet.cristian@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Alvaro Soliverez <<a href="mailto:asoliverez@gmail.com">asoliverez@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Cristian Oneţ <<a href="mailto:onet.cristian@gmail.com">onet.cristian@gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Alvaro Soliverez <<a href="mailto:asoliverez@gmail.com">asoliverez@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> >> > to change the version number to 3.95 (which would be the official<br>
>> >> > version<br>
>> >> > number for the release)<br>
>> >> Do we really need to go that high with the version number. I would<br>
>> >> suggest adopting 1.2 for the KDE4 ported version. I say this because I<br>
>> >> don't think there will be more than one release on the KDE3 branch (so<br>
>> >> that could be 1.1). Once the KDE4 version is done we should really let<br>
>> >> go of the <1.2 branch. We should stick with the kmymoney version<br>
>> >> scheme so there is no need to jump to 3.95.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > The idea is to bump the final version number to 4, that's why.<br>
>> OK, I'm going to insist a bit on this. Why is the final version going<br>
>> to be bumped to 4? Why shouldn't we continue using KMyMoney versions<br>
>> (in a continuous way)? I see no reason to bump to version 4 unless we<br>
>> adopt the KDE4 release schedule but the it should be 4.4 doesn't it?<br>
>><br>
> I don't remember when we had this discussion, but the version number has<br>
> been 3.95 for some time already. Check the about box, that's why I took as a<br>
> fact that the beta version is going to be 3.95. We mentioned it when talking<br>
> about keeping the name and dropping the '2', or at least I think so.<br>
</div>I remember that Thomas committed this version number but I don't know<br>
why he had chosen 3.95 maybe he can shed a bit of light on this.<br></blockquote><div><br>Thomas can provide more detail on this. It was at a time when we were discussing the name change (long before the current discussion) and at that time we agreed to leave it as it was, but bump the version number to 4, to make it fit the KDE version.<br>
<br>Leaving that apart, I wouldn't call it version 1.2 because there have been major changes, if not in features in the sheer amount of code that's been changed since the KDE3 version. So, it deserves at least a major version change. Making it version 2 after we just dropped the 2 from name would make it confusing. And then we come to 3, which resembles KDE3, meaning more confusion. To me, version 4 makes the most sense.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> I think we should be adjusting to a KDE release schedule, but we are going<br>
> to have a couple of versions before that. So, whenever the time comes to<br>
> release together with KDE, we drop our own version number and use KDE's<br>
> (4.5, 4.6 at the time?).<br>
</div>Looking back at KMyMoney's release cycle wouldn't the KDE release<br>
cycle be a bit short for the speed of development?<br>
<div><div></div><br></div></blockquote></div>Actually, the speed of development is quite high. I have put together the release notes for the latest releases and it wasn't easy to decide what to include from all the stuff in there.<br>
<br>Since version 0.9.0, we have been releasing every ~6 months:<br>0.9.0 - May 2008<br>0.9.2 - September 2008 - 4 months after 0.9.0 - There was no 0.9.0<br>0.9.3 - February 2009 - 5 months after 0.9.2<br>1.0.0 - August 2009 - 6 months after 0.9.3<br>
<br>Look at the change log for each release and you'll see we had a quite interesting number of features for each release.<br>Having a 6-month release cycle fits quite well with our speed of development, at least in my view.<br>
<br>Regards,<br>Alvaro<br>