Hi Reinier, Any chance you could give us a yes or no on the odd/even proposal below?
Repeating the tables, the version names would look like this:
============================= ======= =========
versions old way new way
============================= ======= =========
STABLE major release 2.4.0 2.4.0
previous release
STABLE point releases 2.4.x 2.4.x
CURRENT alpha 2.4.97 2.5.97
CURRENT beta 2.4.98 2.5.98
CURRENT rc 2.4.99 2.5.99
upcoming major release 2.5.0 2.6.0
============================== ======= =========
and the branch names would look like this:
============================= ======= =========
branches old way new way
============================= ======= =========
STABLE 2.4 2.4
previous release
HEAD prior to cutting the 2.4 2.5
release branch
CURRENT 2.5 2.5
the release branch
HEAD once we have cut the 2.6 2.7
release branch
============================= ======= =========
Thanks!
Eric
PS. My main motivation for pushing on this is looking at
http://wiki.darcs.net/Benchmarks/Quasar/Beta
and thinking how much nicer it would be if uninformed outsiders
could look at the graphs, and understand at a glance that we're
comparing 2.4.x vs 2.5.x as opposed to two darcsen in the 2.4.x
series. This change would would be the opposite of the "only $4.99"
trick you see in stores, ie. trying to make differences more
apparent to the naked eye.
--
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
