Release notes 0.17

[yorik]

When was this discussed?

This has been discussed a couple of times already, cannot find the topic back, probably in the 0.16 release discussion...
Many apps do that (started with the linux kernel I think), basically it solves that "0.17 stable vs. 0.17 development" thing, it gets clear what is a development version and what is a stable version...

[PrzemoF]

BTW linux kernel gave up with that scheme long time ago... 2004?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel

[saso]

BTW linux kernel gave up with that scheme long time ago... 2004?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel

And I think I have said it before but would like to say it again that personalty I would prefer and vote for to stay with the current scheme. IMO this version jump is quite confusing for most new users and does not really make a big difference for all the users and developers that are following the development more closely. For example explaining every time again and again if a feature or a bug / regression was introduced in version 0.17 or 0.18, but that this are actually one and the same version,... I am afraid it will bring more problems then solutions

I guess the scheme was popular some time ago (in 2004?!), some projects are still using it, but I don't really see many new projects starting or switching to it... It also makes no sense to use it in some of recently more popular rolling releases (continuous delivery).

[PrzemoF]

+1, but it's not my call

[r-frank]

I already "fear" those inevitable questions in the forum
> where is the 0.17 stable release ?
> part design looks different, what happened ?

So keeping the numbering system for me would mean on pain less ...

[NormandC]

Ages ago, I think it was shortly after 0.16 release.

Thanks Jim, I guess that was during the time I was moving into my new house.

> part design looks different, what happened ?

So keeping the numbering system for me would mean on pain less ...

Indeed, I'm also expecting a wave of such questions when it is released.

[yorik]

ok ok, whatever...

[NormandC]

Just wanted to clarify that I was agreeing with Roland on the PartDesignNext questions. As for version numbering, I have no opinion.

[jmaustpc]

+1, but it's not my call

out of curiosity "+1" to what/which?

[PrzemoF]

+1, but it's not my call

out of curiosity "+1" to what/which?

To "I would prefer and vote for to stay with the current scheme"