Hi Diego. On 02/12/2013 06:50 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > 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 > The scheme you are proposing seems sensible to me. Anyway, it is an *extension* to my new proposed versioning/branching scheme, so we don't have to decide on its adoption right away -- we can switch to my proposed scheme first, and then refine/enhance it with your proposal, if nobody objects. OK?
Thanks, Stefano
