Template talk:Flightgeartimeline

If version 0.9.8(2005-1) • 0.9.9(2005-11) • 0.9.10 exist, why 1.9.1 was removed? Shouldn't it be simply redirecting to the appropriate section of the 1.9.0 article, now that they were merged?

Hi. I removed it because it was merged with the 1.9 version. 1.9.1 isn't a complete new release. It's "just" a second release with a few bug fixes that were found in the 1.9.0 version. Our timeline would be extremely long if we note all releases. Please let me know your opinion. I don't dislike to add the 1.9.1 version again, it's just that I think it's not neccesary...

Btw, please end your message with 4 ~ (it will post your name and the time, as you can see below).

Gijs 08:06, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Hello Gijs.

No, I see no problems with removing of 1.9.1 version (especially if it means making place for 2.x :-) I would then suggest cleaning up the whole history a little bit. For instance:

* replace 1.9.0 with 1.9.x and use the latest release date behind

* 0.9.8-9-10 individual pages seem to be mostly cut-paste from 0.9.xx page, which contains them all, and more. Perhaps the time line can be shortened to: 0.8.0; 0.9.xx; 1.0.0; 1.9.x. The individual pages 0.9.8-9-10 may remain, linked from 0.9.xx page, or be merged with it and deleted. Or the 0.9.xx page may be broken in individual pages, because it is pretty long.

* we have to make our mind about the order to put version on the page, on the 0.9.xx is latest first, while the 1.9.0 is chronological. :-)

Leman 05:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

(Thanks for the signature tip, will try to use it now)