Kurosu wrote: > Several persons, both through mail and IRC, expressed a concern. This > mail tries to address it. > > Kurosu a écrit : >> 2) Switch to a less static release cycle, and rather use a 3 months >> schedule without version number (not sure about tagging some versions >> for the official distribution packages) > > The question that arose was about the versionning. Of course versions > would be tagged, and what is left to determine is the numbering.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, keep the versions in order! > What we thought was a good solution, is to break from the > major.minor.patch scheme and select the Ubuntu way (just an example), > referring to the release date. The major.minor.patch scheme is really ok, imho. I know this 0.8 final release has been waited for for a long time, but, we might decide at some point to return to meaningful release numbers. And that would be a fsck-ed up situations (nobody likes epochs in version numbers). > This would be, for instance, 8.06 for the version after this one. This > is a neat coincidence that it somewhat match the next version number > (0.8, so maybe 0.8.06 ?). This would not disrupt too much the numbering > for distros. I'd rather we use 0.8.0.rc1, or even drop the idea that 0.8.0 should have proper networking and say that while we don't skip to 0.9.X we won't consider networking code stable/final. So we might as well release 0.8.0 and keep the same versioning scheme, even if that means we'll get to have 0.8.12 (hopefully not) at some point, before getting 0.9.0 out the door. -- Regards, EddyP ============================================= "Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein _______________________________________________ Wormux-dev mailing list Wormux-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wormux-dev
