On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Markus <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think this system is used by others too. Releases like 3.20 can be > identical to release candidates (which would be 3.18 in this case). If > you take operating systems for example you will see that some build is > just released under the nice looking, stable version number.
It is not being renamed 3.20 it is being renamed 3.2. With single digits supposed to be the stable release steps. Consecutive releases will be/have been 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, etc. When the 3.2.x series gets where we want, we'll call it 3.3. And then move on to 3.3.1, 3.3.2,3.3.3, ... 3.3.47 if need be. This seems to be a good compromise between the need for stable and cutting edge releases, and trying to maintain multiple versions. The other option is to simply have a link on the downloads page to the "Last recommended stable release" and skin with any renumbering. That's just as easy and accomplishes the same thing. But I've kind of grown attached to the new notation as it displays the different between stable and cutting edge more clearly. Any arguments one way or the other? > With the current system what do you expect on site.config? 3.18? 3.20? > 3.18=3.20? 3.18 stable? 3.20 stable? Confusing. Yes it is confusing. I should unzip 3.18, change the number and rezip up to 3.2. I should also patch the security hole in 3.2, as right now it is not really a recommendable release. But I'm quite busy trying to get 3.2.xx up to speed. Getting there, but not there yet. More worried about a 3.3 than 3.2. I'm not very backward looking! :) Cheers, Dan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BoltWire" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/boltwire?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
