On 02/11/2013 04:00 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 11/02/2013 15:54, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> But what if we want to have multiple betas for, say, Automake 1.14? Today, >> we can just have 1.13b, 1.13d, 1.13f, ...; how can we do so with the scheme >> you are proposing? > > Given that 1.12.0 was "not really final release", > Why not?
> and 1.13.0 _and_ .1 were "not really final releases", > This is true, but is only due to the fact that I released them with too much haste, without giving time for proper testing. IOW, this debacle has been a fault of mine, not of the naming scheme. > I would suggest calling the first beta as 1.14.0 with the big fat > warning, > I don't see any need for this; everyone knows that a new major release is more likely to contain bugs and rough edges. (OTOH, this is not excuse to be sloppy and hastily in the release process as I've been for 1.13; but avoiding repeating the mistake in the future will only require more care and attention from the maintainer, and not a change of policy). > then everybody's satisfied (no missing features, for instance), > it rolls as 1.14.4 (say) "really final release". > > This should be more or less equivalent to Apache's versioning, > Any link about this? The info I found on Google doesn't seem very helpful nor relevant. > and leads to decency, I'd say. > Thanks, Stefano
