|
From: | Martin Dvorak |
Subject: | Re: Release rules Was: Re: [Monotone-devel] conflicts store vs show_conflicts |
Date: | Mon, 22 Nov 2010 07:36:30 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 |
Thomas Keller wrote:
We'll have regular minor releases just like before after 1.0 - we only want to assert to support 1.0 with patch releases a little longer than the usual minor releases. I remember we talked about some rules on the list, but never actually jotted them down. I did that now on the RoadMap page [0] - feel free to post corrections and / or updates there. Thomas. [0] http://wiki.monotone.ca/RoadMap/
Hi, I never was fan of the x.99.x/x.9x/etc. version numbering for betas of new major versions. I've been thinking about stable/development version numbering recently (and also in the past) and I think it's better to call such versions as 1.1-alpha5, 1.1-beta3, 2.0-rc2. This means using the target major version but appending a suffix that marks it's not the final release. What do you think? Are there any issues with this scheme for users and/or automatic tools, such as package managers in Linux? bye, Martin
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |