On 12/02/2013 17:44, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Ah, ok, so in the end you already agree that this is a "documentation" > issue rather than a versioning one. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
I guess it's a matter of perception. I honestly don't see the point of beta software if nobody's using it, as it would just actually be an alpha for the beta (.0/.1 releases) which then becomes stable (.2+ — sometimes). If we go with a new major version we could have: 2.0.x -> new major, testing branch (let's not call it beta!), all fine but it throws a huge warning at runtime that the branch is not finalized yet and thus that it should not be used for distributed software 2.1.x -> new major, stable branch, micro versions for bugfix only 2.2.x -> new major, new features branch, introduces deprecation warnings for features leaving in 3.0, possibly some opt-in versions of features becoming standard in 3.0. _If needed_ only: 2.90.x -> experimental branch for the upcoming 3.0 testing branch -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
