I have a hard time to understand how 5.99 is better to describe a development version. 6.00 was already a bad way to describe it. People also were confused. To me .99 seems very arbitrary. Why not .1234?
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 23:20, Eeli Kaikkonen <eeli.kaikko...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ma 8. heinäk. 2019 klo 23.47 Nick Østergaard (oe.n...@gmail.com) kirjoitti: >> >> How is a number like 99 being any better than the latest release tag? >> > > Did you read the original post, about the current problem? What is the > "latest release tag"? 5.1.0 or 5.1.2? Number like 5.99 is unambiguous (and > more clearly points to the next number, 6.0). Like this, my other suggestions > were that the latest or the next release tag wouldn't be used at all for > development versions. The reason is that it would be clear and unambiguous > for all possible purposes. > > To add to the original suggestion: -dev ending could be added to make it even > more clear that it's a development version, but can it create problems for > Linux or other package numbering schemes? Probably not, 5.99.0-dev is smaller > than 5.99.1-dev if 5.99-dev would be used for a release candidate. I wouldn't > like using 5.99.0 and then 6.0-rc1 because in alphabetical order 6.0 comes > before 6.0-rc1. Therefore 5.99.0, 5.99.1 etc. would be the easiest and least > ambiguous solution. > > Eeli Kaikkonen > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
