[GRASS5] Let's publish 5.0.3

GRASS GRASS developer
1

Dear developers

I feel that we should release quickly 5.0.3 and
prepare 5.3.0 as well.

First we have to decide which changes should reach
the 5.0.3 version (a.k.a. current release branch).

for that please make use of:
tools/diff.sh
and update missing changes in the release branch
(but only those which should go into 5.0.3:
HTML fixes and other minor fixes).

The further procedure might be:
- release 5.0.3 soonish
- rename 5.1.0 to 5.7.0
- open a new 5.3.0 release branch (with NVIZ updates, proj updates etc)
- start 5.3.0 testing
etc.

Compare also
http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html

Markus

2

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Markus Neteler wrote:

The further procedure might be:
- release 5.0.3 soonish
- rename 5.1.0 to 5.7.0
- open a new 5.3.0 release branch (with NVIZ updates, proj updates etc)

I think we could just release 5.3.0 from the CVS HEAD. It is a lot of work
adding things to a release branch and we have seen that important things
can get left out by accident.

Paul

3

On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:34:01PM +0100, Paul Kelly wrote:

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Markus Neteler wrote:

> The further procedure might be:
> - release 5.0.3 soonish
> - rename 5.1.0 to 5.7.0
> - open a new 5.3.0 release branch (with NVIZ updates, proj updates etc)

I think we could just release 5.3.0 from the CVS HEAD.

Might make sense in this special case
as 5.3.0 is an "experimental" release
because of the numbering anyway.

It is a lot of work
adding things to a release branch and we have seen that important things
can get left out by accident.

Branching actually is a cheap process itself
but usually a branch should not live long.
We need that 5.0.x branch, because it turned out stability is so important.

4

(cc grass5)

On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 08:16:15PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Markus Neteler wrote:
> Dear developers
>
> I feel that we should release quickly 5.0.3 and
> prepare 5.3.0 as well.

That's fine (for me :slight_smile: Next week?

> First we have to decide which changes should reach
> the 5.0.3 version (a.k.a. current release branch).
>
> for that please make use of:
> tools/diff.sh
> and update missing changes in the release branch
> (but only those which should go into 5.0.3:
> HTML fixes and other minor fixes).
>
> The further procedure might be:
> - release 5.0.3 soonish
> - rename 5.1.0 to 5.7.0
> - open a new 5.3.0 release branch (with NVIZ updates, proj updates etc)
> - start 5.3.0 testing
> etc.

Just to note that if it is useful having up-to-date releases in
Mandrake, I have only about 2 weeks from now till version freeze
(although it's not as stricly applied in contrib).

proj-4.4.7 just went into cooker contrib, and gdal-1.1.9 will go as soon
as some of the python packages have been rebuilt for the update to
python-2.3.

good to hear that. Also Debian moves slowly to get proj and gdal inside.

BTW, why the large gap between 5.3 and 5.7? What about 5.5? What will
the stable releases be? 5.4 and?

Please have a look at the roadmap. If unclear, we should improve the
document (yes, 5.4 will be the last stable version of the 5.x line):
http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html

Also, if there is going to be a "5.3" release of some kind, same applies
to it as 5.0.3 for getting packages into contrib ...

Regards,
Buchan

Markus

5

On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:32:04AM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

> BTW, why the large gap between 5.3 and 5.7? What about 5.5? What will
> the stable releases be? 5.4 and?

Please have a look at the roadmap. If unclear, we should improve the
document

We should include planned unstable (odd number) releases.

(yes, 5.4 will be the last stable version of the 5.x line):
http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html

According to the document that would be 5.8.x
unless you've meant 5.0.x. :slight_smile:

Actually I'm against planing for 6.x as 5.10 will follow 5.9.x releases.

6

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 12:10:05PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:32:04AM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

> > BTW, why the large gap between 5.3 and 5.7? What about 5.5? What will
> > the stable releases be? 5.4 and?
>
> Please have a look at the roadmap. If unclear, we should improve the
> document

We should include planned unstable (odd number) releases.

You mean 5.3.1 etc? Yes.

>(yes, 5.4 will be the last stable version of the 5.x line):
> http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html

According to the document that would be 5.8.x
unless you've meant 5.0.x. :slight_smile:

Actually I'm against planing for 6.x as 5.10 will follow 5.9.x releases.

No, this won't be a good idea. The new vector engine is definitly
a major change, so 6.x is appropriate.
But maybe 5.7 should be named 5.5 to be consequent. However, then
it is far from number 6.

Markus

7

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:28:56PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 12:10:05PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:32:04AM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
>
> > > BTW, why the large gap between 5.3 and 5.7? What about 5.5? What will
> > > the stable releases be? 5.4 and?
> >
> > Please have a look at the roadmap. If unclear, we should improve the
> > document
>
> We should include planned unstable (odd number) releases.

You mean 5.3.1 etc? Yes.

Yes 5.3.x and 5.7.x

> >(yes, 5.4 will be the last stable version of the 5.x line):
> > http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html
>
> According to the document that would be 5.8.x
> unless you've meant 5.0.x. :slight_smile:
>
> Actually I'm against planing for 6.x as 5.10 will follow 5.9.x releases.

No, this won't be a good idea. The new vector engine is definitly
a major change, so 6.x is appropriate.

It is a major change, no doubt.

This is only a question of naming.
Steps like 5.6 5.8 and 5.10 should be considered major anyway.
I'd rather have to delay that question and plan on 5.10 so far,
because we gave out the word that the 5.x release will come to the
new vector format.

Also the numbering is getting inflation too fast IMO.

But maybe 5.7 should be named 5.5 to be consequent. However, then
it is far from number 6.

Leaving space for 5.5 and 5.6 is okay,
as we might eventually run into the problem and don't want to rename
5.9 and 5.10 again. :wink:
  Bernhard

8

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 05:13:10PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:28:56PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 12:10:05PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:32:04AM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> >
> > > > BTW, why the large gap between 5.3 and 5.7? What about 5.5? What will
> > > > the stable releases be? 5.4 and?
> > >
> > > Please have a look at the roadmap. If unclear, we should improve the
> > > document
> >
> > We should include planned unstable (odd number) releases.
>
> You mean 5.3.1 etc? Yes.

Yes 5.3.x and 5.7.x

From the past experience I feel that a very details description in
the roadmap won't be of much value. Remember the "5.1 milestones",
it was neither agreed nor followed. I suggest to keep the roadmap
flexible and more general.

> > >(yes, 5.4 will be the last stable version of the 5.x line):
> > > http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html
> >
> > According to the document that would be 5.8.x
> > unless you've meant 5.0.x. :slight_smile:
> >
> > Actually I'm against planing for 6.x as 5.10 will follow 5.9.x releases.
>
> No, this won't be a good idea. The new vector engine is definitly
> a major change, so 6.x is appropriate.

It is a major change, no doubt.

This is only a question of naming.
Steps like 5.6 5.8 and 5.10 should be considered major anyway.

Well, what is 6 then? A complete rewrite?
In the GRASS history we had

- 4.x US Army + later bugfixes by GRASS Development Team
- 5.x introduction of floating point and new sites

So
- 6.x introduction of new vector and DMBS
sounds somewhat logical.

But I won't insist on numbers.

I'd rather have to delay that question and plan on 5.10 so far,
because we gave out the word that the 5.x release will come to the
new vector format.

This is in fact an argument. We should have discussed earlier.

Also the numbering is getting inflation too fast IMO.

Well, but looking at our release frequency, we'll reach 6.0 in
some years :slight_smile:

> But maybe 5.7 should be named 5.5 to be consequent. However, then
> it is far from number 6.

Leaving space for 5.5 and 5.6 is okay,
as we might eventually run into the problem and don't want to rename
5.9 and 5.10 again. :wink:

right.

Markus

9

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 05:51:05PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 05:13:10PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:28:56PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 12:10:05PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:32:04AM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > >
> > > > > BTW, why the large gap between 5.3 and 5.7? What about 5.5? What will
> > > > > the stable releases be? 5.4 and?
> > > >
> > > > Please have a look at the roadmap. If unclear, we should improve the
> > > > document
> > >
> > > We should include planned unstable (odd number) releases.
> >
> > You mean 5.3.1 etc? Yes.
>
> Yes 5.3.x and 5.7.x

>From the past experience I feel that a very details description in
the roadmap won't be of much value. Remember the "5.1 milestones",
it was neither agreed nor followed. I suggest to keep the roadmap
flexible and more general.

> > > >(yes, 5.4 will be the last stable version of the 5.x line):
> > > > http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html
> > >
> > > According to the document that would be 5.8.x
> > > unless you've meant 5.0.x. :slight_smile:
> > >
> > > Actually I'm against planing for 6.x as 5.10 will follow 5.9.x releases.
> >
> > No, this won't be a good idea. The new vector engine is definitly
> > a major change, so 6.x is appropriate.
>
> It is a major change, no doubt.
>
> This is only a question of naming.
> Steps like 5.6 5.8 and 5.10 should be considered major anyway.

Well, what is 6 then? A complete rewrite?
In the GRASS history we had

- 4.x US Army + later bugfixes by GRASS Development Team
- 5.x introduction of floating point and new sites

So
- 6.x introduction of new vector and DMBS
sounds somewhat logical.

Yes, it is not too bad. :slight_smile:

But I won't insist on numbers.

Me nether.

> I'd rather have to delay that question and plan on 5.10 so far,
> because we gave out the word that the 5.x release will come to the
> new vector format.

This is in fact an argument. We should have discussed earlier.

I thought I had raised that point in my comments on the roadmap before.
Maybe just erase that 6. from the roadmap and we'll be fine
to decide that later.

> Also the numbering is getting inflation too fast IMO.

Well, but looking at our release frequency, we'll reach 6.0 in
some years :slight_smile:

> > But maybe 5.7 should be named 5.5 to be consequent. However, then
> > it is far from number 6.
>
> Leaving space for 5.5 and 5.6 is okay,
> as we might eventually run into the problem and don't want to rename
> 5.9 and 5.10 again. :wink:

right.

10

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 05:03:36PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 05:51:05PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 05:13:10PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:28:56PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 12:10:05PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:32:04AM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

[...]

> > I'd rather have to delay that question and plan on 5.10 so far,
> > because we gave out the word that the 5.x release will come to the
> > new vector format.
>
> This is in fact an argument. We should have discussed earlier.

I thought I had raised that point in my comments on the roadmap before.

I meant one or two years ago. Anyway, not so important.

Maybe just erase that 6. from the roadmap and we'll be fine
to decide that later.

That's an option, but then the desired "development lines" are
less clear to the users and potential new developers.

So you want to delete the brownish 6.0.x part
of
http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html

Or keep it and replace "6.0.x" by 5.?.x" ? As the code
mix approach won't be there forever, we need a new step of
development.

Markus

11

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 05:03:36PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 05:51:05PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 05:13:10PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:28:56PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 12:10:05PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:32:04AM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
[...]
> > > I'd rather have to delay that question and plan on 5.10 so far,
> > > because we gave out the word that the 5.x release will come to the
> > > new vector format.
> >
> > This is in fact an argument. We should have discussed earlier.
>
> I thought I had raised that point in my comments on the roadmap before.

I meant one or two years ago. Anyway, not so important.

Ah. 8)

> Maybe just erase that 6. from the roadmap and we'll be fine
> to decide that later.

That's an option, but then the desired "development lines" are
less clear to the users and potential new developers.

So you want to delete the brownish 6.0.x part
of
http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html

Or keep it and replace "6.0.x" by 5.?.x" ?

Keep it and replace 6.0.x.

As the code mix approach won't be there forever,
we need a new step of development.

That just hold before we shift the major development over.
We were pretty close doing so, but 5.3.x cut into that.

12

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
>
> So you want to delete the brownish 6.0.x part
> of
> http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html
>
> Or keep it and replace "6.0.x" by 5.?.x" ?

Keep it and replace 6.0.x.

Perhaps the brown and red lines should be at the same horizontal level as
they are the same CVS HEAD. It could be called '6+' or '5.7+' or
something, just to emphasise that it is not going to be only 6.0.x releases
made from this branch. But it is kind of nice to include the 6 in the name
as a motivation and reminder that we are working towards version 6

> As the code mix approach won't be there forever,
> we need a new step of development.

That just hold before we shift the major development over.
We were pretty close doing so, but 5.3.x cut into that.

I don't think it was close at all. That's why I chose to make major
improvements to the 5.0 CVS as I could see the merge would be a long time
coming. Although it is definitely closer now that it was then and I will
put future new functionality only into 5.7 as far as I can

Paul

13

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:28:43PM +0100, Paul Kelly wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> >
> > So you want to delete the brownish 6.0.x part
> > of
> > http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html
> >
> > Or keep it and replace "6.0.x" by 5.?.x" ?
>
> Keep it and replace 6.0.x.

Perhaps the brown and red lines should be at the same horizontal level as
they are the same CVS HEAD. It could be called '6+' or '5.7+' or
something, just to emphasise that it is not going to be only 6.0.x releases
made from this branch. But it is kind of nice to include the 6 in the name
as a motivation and reminder that we are working towards version 6

As a developer just putting up the higher number
is not motivating for me. :slight_smile:
Put it might be for Grass developers.

> > As the code mix approach won't be there forever,
> > we need a new step of development.
>
> That just hold before we shift the major development over.
> We were pretty close doing so, but 5.3.x cut into that.

I don't think it was close at all.

I tend to disagree.

That's why I chose to make major
improvements to the 5.0 CVS as I could see the merge would be a long time
coming.

And with this you delayed the focus shift again. :confused:
No hard feeling for it, but GRASS coordination still is not as good
as it could be. Still any effort improving GRASS is helpful.

Although it is definitely closer now that it was then and I will
put future new functionality only into 5.7 as far as I can

This will be very helpful.
Major improvement for versions before 5.7 are not scheduled.

14

On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 01:23:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:28:43PM +0100, Paul Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

[...]

> That's why I chose to make major
> improvements to the 5.0 CVS as I could see the merge would be a long time
> coming.

And with this you delayed the focus shift again. :confused:
No hard feeling for it, but GRASS coordination still is not as good
as it could be. Still any effort improving GRASS is helpful.

Your statement is a bit unclear - what are your proposals for
improved GRASS coordination? Do you think of ongoing efforts
or potential new developers? Please write a bit more detailed
so that GRASS coordination can reach a better level.

[...]

Markus

15

On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 01:51:13PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 01:23:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:28:43PM +0100, Paul Kelly wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
[...]
> > That's why I chose to make major
> > improvements to the 5.0 CVS as I could see the merge would be a long time
> > coming.
>
> And with this you delayed the focus shift again. :confused:
> No hard feeling for it, but GRASS coordination still is not as good
> as it could be. Still any effort improving GRASS is helpful.

Your statement is a bit unclear - what are your proposals for
improved GRASS coordination?

I didn't make a good proposal.
This was just pointing out that Paul said
he choose to make major improvements
as the merge would be a long time coming.

Regarding to what I thought until the 5.3.x issue came up
we were close in shifting development and releasing 5.1.0
without a merge because that would not have been necessary.
Thus came out of the dark to me.
This is probably my fault as I assume that Paul will have said
so a lot earlier and I cannot read all posts, so I don't think
it is anybodies fault.

And I don't have more time to do it better,
so I'm grateful for the efforts.

16

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:28:43PM +0100, Paul Kelly wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> >
> > So you want to delete the brownish 6.0.x part
> > of
> > http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html
> >
> > Or keep it and replace "6.0.x" by 5.?.x" ?
>
> Keep it and replace 6.0.x.

Perhaps the brown and red lines should be at the same horizontal level as
they are the same CVS HEAD. It could be called '6+' or '5.7+' or
something, just to emphasise that it is not going to be only 6.0.x releases
made from this branch. But it is kind of nice to include the 6 in the name
as a motivation and reminder that we are working towards version 6

According to this suggestion I have updated the roadmap:
http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html

BTW: the raw file is here (OpenOffice)
http://grass.itc.it/images/roadmap_graphic.sxi

[...]

Are there implications to release 5.3.0 before 5.0.3?

Markus

17

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Markus Neteler wrote:

[...]

Are there implications to release 5.3.0 before 5.0.3?

Only that people might use it :slight_smile: I think the CVS HEAD is in good working
order at the minute. The old experimental releases 5.0.0preX had some
quite serious bugs in them and at that time there was no alternative
stable release available; I think the time is right to release 5.3.0.

Paul

18

On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:05:13AM +0100, Paul Kelly wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Markus Neteler wrote:

> [...]
>
> Are there implications to release 5.3.0 before 5.0.3?

Only that people might use it :slight_smile: I think the CVS HEAD is in good working
order at the minute. The old experimental releases 5.0.0preX had some
quite serious bugs in them and at that time there was no alternative
stable release available; I think the time is right to release 5.3.0.

To somewhat confirm:
I have looks at the diffs between the 5.0.x release branch and the
CVS HEAD. It seems to be a lot of (useless?) work required to
patch in the important bugfixes into the release branch for a 5.0.3
version.
Probably we better work on 5.4.0 then and 5.7.

Markus

19

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Markus Neteler wrote:

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:28:43PM +0100, Paul Kelly wrote:

According to this suggestion I have updated the roadmap:
http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html

As a mostly-user of grass, I get confused by this. Where was 5.2? Why no
5.1 if there is a 5.3? What about 5.7 if there is a 5.8?

The other software I am familiar with that has a similar problem with
versioning is samba. They had a stable release branch, 2.0.x, and were
doing heavy development in HEAD, which was supposed to be 2.1. Then,
they realised they would need a new stable branch with selected features
from HEAD (win2k support when a domain controller). So, they renumbered
HEAD to 3.0, but the new stable release branch became 2.2.x.

Grass is in a similar position. I would suggest, to keep people from
wondering about seemingly random version numbers, to:

- -keep 5.0.x branch in bugfix mode
- -development of current grass50 cvs becomes 5.1, if pre-release
snapshots are to be made, eventually becoming 5.2.x
- -current grass51 becomes 5.3 (if pre-releases are made), and eventually
becomes either 5.4 or 6.0, depending on circumstances.

There's nothing wrong with going from 5.2 to 6.0, but I find
5.0->5.4->5.8->6.0 a bit weird.

Of course, I am just a user ...

Regards,
Buchan

- --
|--------------Another happy Mandrake Club member--------------|
Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager
Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202
Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za
GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc
1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/O5qurJK6UGDSBKcRAtj9AJ9l866hnj2gvBTaTacYJJT69LYB8QCeInxB
Z9jy79+gzuUtwOwJ5LG0x2Q=
=Rmxu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

******************************************************************
Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our
e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to info@cae.co.za for a copy.
******************************************************************

20

On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:20:30PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:28:43PM +0100, Paul Kelly wrote:

>
> According to this suggestion I have updated the roadmap:
> http://grass.itc.it/roadmap.html

As a mostly-user of grass, I get confused by this. Where was 5.2? Why no
5.1 if there is a 5.3? What about 5.7 if there is a 5.8?

The other software I am familiar with that has a similar problem with
versioning is samba. They had a stable release branch, 2.0.x, and were
doing heavy development in HEAD, which was supposed to be 2.1. Then,
they realised they would need a new stable branch with selected features
from HEAD (win2k support when a domain controller). So, they renumbered
HEAD to 3.0, but the new stable release branch became 2.2.x.

Grass is in a similar position. I would suggest, to keep people from
wondering about seemingly random version numbers, to:

- -keep 5.0.x branch in bugfix mode
- -development of current grass50 cvs becomes 5.1, if pre-release
snapshots are to be made, eventually becoming 5.2.x

To me this looks more confusing: replacing an existing 5.1 with
another 5.1 is not easy to understand. That's why I suggested to
skip number 5.1 (say, rename the current 5.1 to 5.7) and also
skip number 5.2 (as an unstable version following the non-existing
5.1 is 5.3 which then leads to 5.4).

- -current grass51 becomes 5.3 (if pre-releases are made), and eventually
becomes either 5.4 or 6.0, depending on circumstances.

There's nothing wrong with going from 5.2 to 6.0, but I find
5.0->5.4->5.8->6.0 a bit weird.

Just to clarify: In fact it should be:
- 5.0->5.4 | then stop development on this branch
and
- 5.7->5.8->6.0
which are two separate things.

Of course, I am just a user ...

Your comments are most welcome. Again, I don't insist on numbers,
if more people agree on *replacing* 5.1, we can do it of course.
It's not my personal decision :slight_smile:

Markus