I've been looking at documentation changes (i.e. user manuals) to support the current dev / unstable / 1.2.0 / main trunk version of CHDK.
But as the previous sentence just illustrated, what we are calling things is becoming something of a problem. Exactly what revision/version of CHDK are we talking about?
So I'm thinking that we might really need a simpler higher level naming scheme. Something like this :
CHDK Generation Zero : Gen0 : the old days of different builds : allbest,grand,juiciphox,etc
CHDK Generation One : Gen1 : the first unified build - circa 2009 ( a.k.a. 1.0.0 <- archived)
CHDK Generation Two : Gen2 : the next unified build ( a.k.a. 1.1.0 <- today's stable)
CHDK Generation Three : Gen3 : the one after that ( a.k.a. 1.2.0 <- today's unstable)
CHDK Gen4 : etc etc etc
The Gen level gets bumped when the version minor number gets changed. Our use of a three level version number is a bit of an artifice ... we don't actually use the minor numbers to designate major & minor revisions so the S/N ration there is really low. Build numbers are used instead.
I know this sounds more like marketing speak that hacker talk but stuff like this can make a big difference in our communications and new user introductions. And once you start using Gen0 or Gen3 in normal conversation, people will quickly learn what you are talking about.
For example, I could tell a new user that the current user manual refers mostly to Gen1 CHDK, they have Gen2 from the download, but they really should be using Gen3 to get the latest features. Which is much better than telling them the current manual is from the "archived old version we don't use anymore" vs the "stable version we don't update except for bug fixes or when we decide its okay to break the no update rule" vs the "version with all the cool new stuff that everyone really wants that actually runs really well and sometimes better than previous versions but we call it unstable to maintain its geek cred ...". You get the idea.
