> > but 1.1.5cvs is the development.
> > Seems to be like Jürgen wants something like:
> >
> > 1.3.0 development
> > 1.4.x stable
> > 1.5.0 development
> > 1.6.x stable
It's just another encoding of version numbers. With the "new" scheme
old: "new"
1.1.4 1.2.0 "stable"
1.1.4fix1 1.2.1 "stable, bugfix, no new feature"
1.1.4fix2 1.2.2 "stable, bugfix, no new feature"
1.1.4fix3 1.2.3 "stable, bugfix, no new feature"
...
1.1.5cvs 1.3.x "development, many new features"
1.1.5pre1 1.3.91 "development, bugfixing, some features"
1.1.5pre2 1.3.92 "development, bugfixing, sneaking feature
1.1.5pre3 1.3.93 "development, bugfixing"
...
1.1.5 1.4.0 "stable"
1.1.5fix1 1.4.1 "stable, bugfix, no new feature"
1.1.5fix2 1.4.2 "stable, bugfix, no new feature"
1.1.5fix3 1.4.3 "stable, bugfix, no new feature"
...
1.2 1.12 or 2.0 or whatever.
It does not affect "development cycle length" at all. It is just a
"new" number scheme that happens to be fairly well known since a lot of
linux related software use it. People will not ask themselves whether
"pre" is "preferable", "pretty", "predictable" or just a "prefix" that
happends to stand at the end of the word... Urm...
Any distributor checking for new releases sees 1.2.x and says "Oh, that
number looks stable", perhaps double checks README and voila -
good old 1.1.4 got on thousands of CDs.
Andre'
PS: I am not religiuos about the 9x numbers.
--
It'll take a long time to eat 63.000 peanuts.
André Pönitz ......................... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
