Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Sukneet Basuta <sukneet AT gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:02 PM, David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org> wrote:
> I think we need to do this, and not worry about not having things we
> don't have. If we name it 1.0, work on 2.0 can begin, without fear of
> breaking backwards compatibility, if desired, or let it be done, and
> move on to other things.

What's your personal stance on this? Do you think we should work on
2.0 or let Source Mage be done and just maintain the grimoire?

Personally, I don't care if we say we are at version 1.0 -- it's just
a number. To me, it's the same thing as the version number change in
the Linux kernel or Firefox. Nothing is really going to change imo.

However, if it means that we can move on and start a 2.0 branch where
we can break stuff, I'm all for it. I remember your election speech
before you were voted Project Lead. If we can implement a fraction of
what you were talking about, I think Source Mage will be a lot better.