On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 06:34:26PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > Note that I used the correct version 3.4.99.1 for this beta. We use > (3.3.99.X also for 3.4 betas). I am sorry that I used 3.5.0.0 for > beta0. The 3.5.0.x version are reserved for release candidates.
Can we tag the beta0 as 3.4.99.0 in addition to 3.5.0.0 for now? That shouldnt hurt. As we wont have a 3.5.0 rc0 we could silently leave the 3.5.0.0 tag where it is, but would never need to tell anyone about it anymore. Having: 3.5.0beta0 => 3.4.99.0 3.5.0beta1 => 3.4.99.1 3.5.0rc0 => nonexistant, published rcs start at 1 3.5.0rc1 => 3.5.0.1 If someone asks about the 3.5.0.0 tag, we could tell them to just ignore it without lengthy discussions. Well, people could still ask why our rcs start at 1, while our minors and majors start at 0 and we _could_ answer that with "tradition" as OOo did so too. That would not be the whole story as 3.X.X_m0 was the branchoff point at OOo (quite a sensible convention), in which case our 3.5.0.0 is slightly of the mark. Anyway: Could we at least please double-tag 3.5.0.0 as 3.4.99.0? Best, Bjoern _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
