On 14 November 2014 19:50, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use >> a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? >> >> Eg. >> mesa 10.4.0-rc1 -> 10.3.99.901 >> mesa 10.4.0-rc2 -> 10.3.99.902 >> ... >> mesa 10.4.0 -> 10.4.0 > > Something else that occurred to me -- you want to still make a stable > 10.3 release, so 10.3.x will come out after 10.3.99.901? Seems > confusing... > Not sure I fully understand what the confusing part it is. Can you elaborate ?
Perhaps the following examples should clear any of your confusion: 10.3 branch: 10.3.0 10.3.0.901 (10.3.1-rc1) 10.3.0.902 (10.3.1-rc2) // if needed 10.3.1 10.3.1.901 (10.3.2-rc1) 10.3.1.902 (10.3.2-rc2) // if needed ... you get the idea. At the same time Master branch: 10.3.99 (10.4-dev) 10.4.99 (10.5-dev) As you can see things are straight forward, plus as Daniel pointed out, using this approach the version string is actually linear :) -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev