On Thursday 10 May 2001 7:17 pm, you wrote:
> Gary> Except 1.4-p1a isn't an alpha release number under your new
> Gary> versioning rules. Are you sure that is okay?
>
> Yeah, it's fine.
Okay. Done.
But it does raise the general problem of how to differentiate between alpha
releases and full releases when using a fork identifier. For instance we
could not adopt this scheme for libtool, since 1.4.1 (the first stable patch
release from the 1.4 release branch) could be named 1.4-p1, and the next
stable release from that branch could be named 1.4-p2. However, there is no
way to consistently name the snapshots from that branch to show where they
lie chronologically in addition to identifying that they are from the branch.
I think I still prefer 1.4.1 through 1.4.1a (with an option to release 1.4.1b
as an alpha along the way for example) then 1.4.2 etc.
Do you have any plans to extend your fork identifier matching to allow this
sort of functionality?
Cheers,
Gary.
--
())_. Gary V. Vaughan gary@(oranda.demon.co.uk|gnu.org)
( '/ Research Scientist http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk ,_())____
/ )= GNU Hacker http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool \' `&
`(_~)_ Tech' Author http://sources.redhat.com/autobook =`---d__/
