José Matos wrote: > On Friday 29 January 2010 22:38:05 Peter Kümmel wrote: >> Read the "Table of contents" at >> http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/NewInLyX20 >> >> most looks like "bug/missing-feature" fixing. This is maybe >> only my perception, but imagine a "non-hacker/user-only" reads >> this list, he would wonder why we've decided to name the next >> release "LyX 2.0". There is no "iPad" effect ;) >> >> Peter > > So I propose to rename it to 0.19 because we have always evolved and never > had > any real revolution. > > LyX 1.6.x is a different beast from 1.0.0 and yet you insist to have the same > initial number. The change to a new major number is longer overdue. >
I don't insist on 2.0. I only think to make the jump to 2.0 now is without a reason. We missed the chance to name it 2.0 when releasing 1.6, so why should we do it now. Assume we introduce a new file-format,would we relase 3.0 then? But don't get me wrong, I don't care that much on the version number. I'm glad we don't start something like LyX 02.2010. Peter
