The choice of 0.7.5 follows from the marketing tradition of using ".
5" as not-quite-a-full-rev revision bump. In this case, the jump to
0.7.5 would indicate that i18n bugs/work are all done. We might jump
from 0.7.1 straight to 0.7.5. Or we might get out a 0.7.2, and then
jump.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning>:
Developers may at times jump (for example) from version 5.0 to 5.5
to indicate that significant features have been added, but not
enough to warrant incrementing the major version number.
We might want to pay attention to the "Odd-numbered versions for
development releases" section of that page..
Reid
On Aug 21, 2007, at 21:03, Brian Kirsch wrote:
Hi Reid,
see comments inline.
On Aug 21, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Reid Ellis wrote:
The 4-digit version numbering suffers from confusion, e.g. 0.7.1
vs 0.7.0.2 (which one is "better"?)
Just to summarize the two proposals I made in the meeting:
Move the i18n release to "0.7.5", and release interim bug fixes
as 0.7.1, 0.7.2, 0.7.3, 0.7.4.
I am a bit confused on how it is known that we need four and only
four bug fix releases
before the i18n release.
Can you explain further.
Thanks,
Brian
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
