Wine 2.0

[IneedAname]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:27:16 +0200
Remco <remco47 at gmail.com> wrote:

> How about, instead of calling the next major release version 1.2, call
> it version 2.0? The reason is purely marketing: an x.0 number will
> attract more press. Last major release was 1.0. It seems fitting to
> have the next major release be 2.0. Besides, is there any reason to
> have multiple levels of "major releases"? I somehow doubt that a "2.0"
> can ever be justified if regular major releases use 1.x.

You got to be joking... how long did it take to get to version 1?
Wines version bump for stable is like Firefox going from version 3.0 to 3.5,
more of the same but better.
Two years of work and going up by two numbers, that sounds and feels right to me.
The press is not going to buy us (read the people who have worked on Wine) jumping from
Wine 1 to Wine 2 in 2 years.

By the way Lazarus had the same thing about going from 0.9.28 to 1.0.0, it got turned down.

It looks like you have some time on your hands,
give this a read http://www.pcworld.com/article/82606/linux_users_ready_to_toast_wine.html 

I will vote for Wine jumping to version 2 when it gets 128bit support (yes 128bit not 64bit).