Looks good to me. I feel like there are two reasonable sets of release
naming conventions, which convey slightly different meanings:
major minor patch
stable beta alpha
I don't suppose it's news to anyone here, but I feel compelled to
mention that the maintainers' document has always implicitly promulgated
1.2, 1.3, ... for real releases, and (for a long time now) either 1.2.90,
1.2.91, ..., or using 1.2.YYYYMMDD, for test releases.
Anyway.
karl
