Let's use 3.0 only for next real release (was: Re: After 2.9.7)

[Friedrich W. H. Kossebau]

Am Donnerstag, 27. August 2015, 14:27:17 schrieb Boudewijn Rempt:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Am Donnerstag, 27. August 2015, 09:57:32 schrieb Boudewijn Rempt:
> >> I think that the frameworks branch is now ready to be called 3.0. It's
> >> obviously not ready to release to end users, but we should make it the
> >> new master. But let's call it the frameworks branch for now.
> > 
> > +1 for making frameworks master now :)
> > 
> > Proposal:
> > Let's change and not (ab)use the "3.0" version label for the current
> > development milestone in the frameworks branch where initial port could be
> > declared done-with-no-big-regressions, and thus also not do the first
> > release as "3.1".
> > Let's instead use the "3.0" version for the first release. And simply keep
> > the current 3.0 Alpha tag on the frameworks branch.
> > 
> > Not need to dump "3.0" in interface to public and waste time/space in the
> > release notes, chats and interviews/articles on where 3.0 is and why 3.0
> > was skipped, where instead features could and should be highlighted :)
> > Unless anyone can tell if there could be a great promotion spin done out
> > of that? ;)
> > 
> > Internally we have been talking about 3.0 as
> > switch-feature-development-to-
> > frameworks milestone and 3.1 as first-qt5-based release, but well, we are
> > smart contributors and can quickly adapt tag labels, right? :)
> > 
> > Objections?
> 
> Not for me, but though I was just using the terminology we'd decided on at
> the start of the porting, I don't switching away from it :-)

"*mind" I assume?

Yes, terminology made sense for the inital plans (which included release of 
3.0) and also was understood by everyone :)
But now that we decided to not release that milestone, IMHO we better adapt 
also the terminology (as it has semantics if used also for communication with 
public).

Cheers
Friedrich