Re: [Bug-gnubg] New stable version?

[Russ Allbery]

Philippe Michel <address@hidden> writes:

> I don't know if this is how it is seen in software engineering, but for
> me releases imply some kind of roadmap ("We'll implement this and this
> and that and call it 1.0"). There is no such thing for gnubg.

I don't think those of us who would like some sort of release or version
number are asking for anything to change about the development process
other than periodically putting a version number on things.  Having
long-term roadmaps is often rare in the free software community,
particularly with projects that have been around for a while and which
already fairly completely implement their core functionality (as is the
case with gnubg).

Version numbers are mostly used as a signaling mechanism: this source code
is not in the middle of any sort of disruptive change and we believe is
stable and basically superior to the previous releases of the software, so
those who aren't involved in development should feel free to update to it.

For example, if you slapped a version number on each version for which
someone felt inspired to provide new "official" Windows binaries, that
would probably be about right.

-- 
Russ Allbery (address@hidden)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>