Sooo, when is version 0.8.12 released?

Post by **Sangel** » March 24th, 2005, 1:04 am

Well, whatever the numerologists declare to be the auspicious number for the next release, I'm sure we all agree that it will be truly excellent.

Monkey wrote:That's because monkeys don't burn.

Not true. Haven't you heard of Burning Monkey Solitaire?

Monkey · Post by **Monkey** » March 24th, 2005, 1:39 am

That's so cool, I think I'm gonna copy the monkey's image hehehe

But that proves my rule, that's because it is funny, because monkeys don't burn, so see a monkey burning makes you laught
right? don't you agree with me?

silene · Post by **silene** » March 24th, 2005, 7:43 am

I hope this quote will put an end to this thread.

silene wrote:I suggest the next release not to be 0.8.12. The 0.8.11 release was a good release imo. Since then, there has been a lot of intrusive changes. I wouldn't be surprised if the next release was rather broken (not that I hope so), so it warrants to be a fresh 0.9.0. I think the 0.8 branch should be left as it is.

And there was a general consensus. (My opinion on the stability of the next release is no more as bad as it was when I wrote this mail though, but that doesn't change anything on the "intrusive" front.)

Kirdan · Post by **Kirdan** » April 8th, 2005, 10:50 am

turin wrote:There's been some discussion on this on the mailing list; versions that are 0.x.0 are no longer said to be stable.

It would also be a difficult message to get accepted that 0.x.0 versions are "stable". I guess most people don't read the "version guidelines" of most software, but just guess from the version-numbers. ... and many people probably think like an sysop I once knew: "Never use a *.0 version - they are always buggy" ... of course he was mostly talking about gcc, but I think it's a widely used rule.