Here's a little bit different option than what we've discussed: A Different Possible Work Flow:* Sydney works on the moon replacement.  We would focus on just getting something reasonable -- shading, shape, etc.  Speed is important here. * Bugsbane works on a Turtle Boss replacement.  We ask him to just come up with something "that works" for now and do the really good replacement later.  This is done in parallel.     * He also might look into resizing some of the existing army SVG sprites into Army boss sprites.  There may not be a 1:1 correspondence, in which case gaps would need to be filled. * We continue following up on Johan's licensing and anything else deemed critical or high priority in parallel * A better moon replacement is done later.* A better army boss replacement is done later. Before this effort is started, we'd have to get:* Time estimates for both the Army boss and moon replacements.  It should take less time if we use a quick replacement option.* Availability estimates - how much time do Sydney and Bugsbane have now, and when is it likely to be completed (we won't hold them to the fire at all of course -- it's all volunteer)? I think it's worth asking this question before dropping the turtle boss from release 2.0.  I'd like to be done with the release, too, but I think we really should ask these questions before purging long standing features that were in SMC 1.9. It's also worth asking what the likelihood of a Nintendo lawyer or Linux distributor complaining about the existing turtle boss or moon sprite graphics are. We really should post this discussion in a ticket in github - not everyone uses the mailing list (ie Bugsbane does not use mailing lists).  People may not check IRC logs, either.  github seems to get more responses right now than the other venues we use. -datahead On Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:56 AM, Chris Jacobsen <cjj_009(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: Two corrections: "datahead wants to make 2.0.0 a really good release with lots of new  features."    --No, I don't want to add new features to release 2.0.  I was concerned about removing existing features such as the turtle boss in the release.  We should think carefully before doing this.  I also had reasoned we'd want to be reasonably deMarioized before the release as much as feasibel (and not look over-buggy).  This release is the first in 5 years and the first TSC series release -- this is why I thought this is worth considering. "Luiji wants to take the opportunity to wipe out the backward   compatibility code right now."--As I understand it, he had last suggested having .smclvl files use the old data format and .tsclvl's use the new format, which would not break compatibility.  Before suggesting this, yes, he did suggest breaking compatibility in release 2.0.  Luiji can correct me on any of this as needed. --datahead On Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:42 AM, Quintus <quintus(a)quintilianus.eu&gt; wrote: So this discussion has come up on IRC again, with the additional aspect of what to make of 2.0.0 at all. and I would like to sort it out properly. So far, I have seen the following positions: * datahead wants to make 2.0.0 a really good release with lots of new   features. * Luiji wants to take the opportunity to wipe out the backward   compatibility code right now. * Bugsbane would like to have a larger time frame to submit more   graphics for 2.0.0 * I want a release as soon as possible so we have something to show. I repeat we are already in beta phase for 2.0.0 and I’m strictly against introducing new code features. How would you manage to do this? The devel branch has been changed by Brian heavily (in very good ways!), so it is unfeasable to introduce that into 2.0.0 as it’s lots of unstable development code. Also, allowing new features albeit we froze the 2.0.0 version earlier already would delay the release probably somewhere into 2016 or later. That can’t be really the goal. Breaking the beta plan we had out there also looks inconsistent. On the other hand I don’t want to have all the previous SMC users refrain from switching to TSC, so some degree of backward compatibility to at least 1.9 seems warranted. Expanding the time frame even more doesn’t seem useful to me neither. We have been in beta phase for several months now, and we ought to release something now. We can’t roll on in beta eternally. After the 2.0.0 release, we have the window open again for any new features, and may be able to do some more or less quick series of followup releases. Luiji suggested doing prereleases, but thinking about that, how is this different from beta releases actually? In fact, beta releases _are_ prereleases, thus we have beein doing prereleases all the time already. As far as I am concerned, I would like to confirm licensing with Johan, replace the moon with something else, and then do the release, probably removing the turtle boss as I have suggested on IRC. There are no critical code bugs left that would prevent that. Please, followup on this. We really need to come to a conclusion. Valete, Quintus Quintus <quintus(a)quintilianus.eu&gt; writes: -- Blog: http://www.quintilianus.eu I will reject HTML emails.    | Ich akzeptiere keine HTML-Nachrichten.                               | Use GnuPG for mail encryption: | GnuPG für Mail-Verschlüsselung: https://www.gnupg.org         | https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GnuPG My key fingerprint:            | Mein Schlüsselabdruck: B1FE 958E D5E8 468E AA20      | B1FE 958E D5E8 468E AA20 8F4B F1D8 799F BCC8 BC4F      | 8F4B F1D8 799F BCC8 BC4F