Once upon a time, Takashi wrote : > no, as you can see in the 0.5.x series, the sub-version number will be > (hopefully) increased at each release once after 0.9.0 is out. > again, the current sitatuion is excpetional. > > my understanding of rc-version is exactly what you suggested -- it's > nothing but the test-release tarball before the official tarball. > (please don't take the example of 0.9.0rcX here. i mean, ideally.) > > so, in this matter, 1.0-rcX _should_ come later on, but they must not > survive long like 0.9.0rcX, and they are not for normal (end-)users. > the people who don't understand what the suffix means should use the > version only with numbers.
I get your point. So we both seem to agree that the current situation is rather annoying, but it wasn't supposed to be :-) I really don't mind the "rcX" or "preX" versions, but these should never be widely released, advertised nor packaged, and a good example would be the Linux kernel itself, where version numbers are clear, although "hidden" to the end users there are all those pre-patches underlying ;-) I guess we just should hope that from now on branching and releases will be done at the right time to always provide users with a recent recommended version, comprehensively numbered with no "rc", "beta" or whatever tag in it. Cheers, Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Red Hat Linux release 7.3 (Valhalla) running Linux kernel 2.4.18-10acpi Load : 0.16 0.16 0.17 ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0002en _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
