Talk:Version lifecycle/Archive

Switch form 1.x to 2.x
When do you will choose to pass from 1.x to 2.0? what's the point about this? --almaghi 10:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's going to happen soon. Versioning in software mainly has a marketing background, and MediaWiki isn't that big on that. siebrand 14:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe 1.16 would be a very good candidate to be 2.0 Cheers --kgh 19:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

dgdfgdgdgdgdgdgd

Lifecycle policy still state of the art?
Hi, since 1.16 is still to be released it becomes obvious that the current policy is not very useful since it is not dynamic. I presume that the lifecycles of 1.14 and 1.15 have ended or will "officially" end before 1.16 is released. Thus I would like to make a suggestion to change the policy. Why not saying that the lifecycle of a version ends x months after the succeeding version was released? Interpreting the current policy 9 months would be the timespan of choice. This is just an idea that would result into better planning without forcing the MediaWiki Team into a strict release cycle. Cheers --kgh 19:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

1.16
Why is it so hard to find out information for when 1.16 will be released?
 * It can be hard to predict when it will be ready for release. However, Tim Starling has recently stated that there should be a stable release within a week or two. Reach Out to the Truth 03:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly it's been delayed again but there isn't any update on when. It seems the only way to get answers on software releases is to visit IRC. Really disappointing to see the almost nonexistent level of communication when there are many people including myself who run MW and have been eagerly waiting for many months to implement the new version. --Resplendent 22:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Colors
I think the colors of current version and legacy version should be changed to anothers, because the people who is color-blind can not recognize and see the same colors.222.254.185.214 14:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)