Den 9.5.2007 kl. 18:05 skrev Max CtRiX: > Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk ha scritto: >> hi all >> >> first of all, we've just put CW into production, and it works well. >> not a lot of users yet, but they're moving over slowly >> >> and then to the point. http://callweaver.org/milestones sets a 1.2.0 >> release date to 1. june, which is ok. However, the version number >> 1.2.0 looks somehow wrong to me. The arguments for this (as from >> ctrix) are mainly "it was based on asterisk 1.2" and "noone wants to >> run 1.0". > > Sorry but i didn't say this. > > When we were openpbx, 1.2 had the following reasons: > > 1) opbx was from * 1.2
...but have changed a lot. Also, following * versioning only makes us look like * wannabies, which is BAD > 2) opbx jumped over 1.0 release (there was an old branch meant to > do 1.0 > so 1.2 was the best choice opbx jumped over all sorts of releases, as it was never released. > 3) no one uses 1.0 software The people not using 1.0 software are mostly from the Windoze society, and many of them don't use anything that don't come in blue. It _will_ be the first release of a product forked from the original Asterisk 1.2 codebase, so calling it something else than 1.0 will be a lie. I beleive releasing betas, starting _now_ with 0.9.0, will be a good idea. > Now we are going to release not what was meant to be opbx1.2 but was > going to be opbx 1.4 so it's a new branch. > > For CW i have proposed to get rid of the numbering scheme which is > useless and silly. We already have a SVN revision number and that's > enough. > > I proposed to call each CW version with some fancy name, like > debian or > ubuntu does. Petnames are nice, along with a version number, as in ubuntu and debian. Debian Etch == 4.0 etc. But that's another discussion. IMO the first release shouldn't be 1.2 or 3.14 or anything but 1.0 roy _______________________________________________ Callweaver-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.callweaver.org/mailman/listinfo/callweaver-dev
