On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 01:05:08PM +0000, Philipp A. wrote: > I tried just to read and not ask anything but no amount of reading has > resulted in any enlightenment, so: > > Why not do what almost everyone does and have 4.X mean “stable” while > anything with alpha/beta/pre/rc means unstable? > > KDE made the same mistake with the exact same version number, i.e having > the number look stable to everyone while the software was (as they clearly > said everywhere!) a pre-release. People used it, distros shipped it, it was > buggy and incomplete and everybody was confused and angry as a consequence. > Was it simply lack of historic knowledge that led to the GTK-4.0 decision? > > Besides, there's no gain in specifying some arbitrary minor version to be > suddenly stable (as it was said GTK 4, “somewhere around 4.6” would > become). There's exclusively a disadvantage, i.e. that you can't rely on > common sense, convention, or any other kind of rule to know if that's a > stable version. You have to know our look it up. > > Just use http://semver.org and you have something that follows the > principle of least surprise.
See: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GTK%2B/Lifecycle Nothing is decided yet. There is another proposal with even/odd major versions to distinguish between stable/unstable. -- Sébastien _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
