On 11/27/12 14:53, André Hentschel wrote: > Am 27.11.2012 13:32, schrieb Jacek Caban: >> The idea is that Wine Gecko version could be just something based on >> other versions, that are more informative. It's not really possible to >> use Wine version, because the first version of Wine that will use new >> Gecko is not ultimately when Wine Gecko branches. Also multiple Wine >> versions use the same Wine Gecko. That leaves us with Gecko (Firefox >> version). We don't release on every Firefox release (every 6 weeks), so >> if we just used Firefox version, that would look strange (like Wine >> Gecko 18 followed by Wine Gecko 20). That can be mitigated by using it >> as a minor version. So the next few release would look like: >> - 1.9 (that's already in beta and will be the last release using old scheme) >> - 2.20 (assuming the next update will be 3 months from 1.9, which means >> Firefox 20) >> - 2.22 (assuming another 3 moths for the update). > I like the idea, but why move to 2.x? 1.20, 1.22 and so on would perfectly > fit. > And if the gap between 1.9 and 1.20 is confusing someone, then he really has > issues. > I'm also fine with 2.x, i just think a new version scheme shouldn't > necessarily lead to a version increment.
You're right, 1.20 would fit, but I also don't see anything wrong with version increment. That said, I don't have strong preference here. Thanks, Jacek
