On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 20:22:37 +0200, Reinier Lamers wrote: > > Did you forget to upload the 2.5 beta to hackage? The latest version I see > > is in the 2.4 series. > > I'm sorry. I intended to include a note explaining the relation between > numerical (2.4.98.1) and "beta"/"rc"(2.5 beta 1) version names, but forgot to > do so. This should be fixed for beta 2 :)
It's not too late to switch to an odd/evens numbering scheme ;-) Quoting me from 2010-02 [1]: But I suspect we use those names because they are really compelling. I think "Darcs 2.9 beta 1" is clearer that "Darcs 2.8.99.1" because the later looks superficially like part of the Darcs 2.8 line. The idea at work here instead of trying to document a confusing situation and hope that people will read the documentation (they won't), it's better to avoid the confusing situation in the first place. The least confusing would be to avoid a purely numbers based scheme, but unless the Hackage GSoC project changes things, that's not a realistic alternative. Anyway, I'm not insisting! :-) [1] http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2010-February/023105.html -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> For a faster response, please try +44 (0)1273 64 2905.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
