[Scummvm-devel] Branched.

Max Horn max at quendi.de
Mon Feb 16 04:59:00 CET 2004


Am 16.02.2004 um 13:37 schrieb James 'Ender' Brown:

>> Why? It's going to be the successor of 0.6.0 one day, and it already
>> now has additional features which the 0.6.0 branch hasn't (and that
>> will soon increase, once the FLAC patch and other things get checked
>> in). So a higher version number seems logical to me...
>
> Well, it's sensible in that regard (OT: argh, the FLAC patch. I am 100%
> against this 'yet another audio format' and 'yet another scaler' thing
> :P)

Then a) why did you not state that on the FLAC tracker item so far, and 
b) why exactly? Certainly you have well founded logical reasons for 
your position, and aren't just acting "out of your guts", right? :-).


> , but my point is mainly the below.
>
>> I'd find that even more confusing, because to me, "0.6devel" is 
>> exactly
>> the same as "0.6.0pre" - i.e. a development / prerelease version of
>> 0.6.0. Which is not true, because HEAD is actually the successor of
>> 0.6.0.
>
> Yes, true. I just want to make a clear distinction between a 
> development
> tree and the stable tree.

Fair enough, my goal as well.

>  Expecially assuming (well, hoping :) that we
> follow through with the idea of doing more regular point releases. As
> you say later on. That is my main problem here, distinguising between
> the two. And I really don't think that a higher version number makes
> that clear enough. How about 0.7devel then?

Fine by me. Although I bet people will think this is 0.7.0, and we'll 
start getting feedback about "problems with ScummVM 0.7" or "Scummvm 
7.0" :-). So adopting the linux model (odd number for unstable branch, 
even for stable) wouldn't be such a bad option....



Cheers,

Max





More information about the Scummvm-devel mailing list