On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 14:24 +0200, Naba Kumar wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 13:06 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > Probably because the even number (2.0) suggests (by convention) that > > it's a stable release. I think it would be best if Anjuta followed > > GNOME's version number conventions. > > > No confusion should arise since release notes clearly says its alpha and > I am sure the package maintainers are aware of that fact. > > The development line for Anjuta 2.x starts, naturally, from 2.0.0, > leaving 1.x for the stable. If we wanted the '0' release to be stable, > we would have to go with 1.99.x or something, creating a far more > confusion with 1.x line. > > I don't know what's the best way to switch major version, but that was > something we found reasonable since people don't generally expect > stability in '0' releases. > > Thanks.
I think this is reasonable at the moment. I suspect Murray fails to appreciate that 2.x.x is a complete rewrite. When the 2.0.x release is stabilised I think it would be a good idea to switch over to a GNOME style 2.1.x/2.2.x release numbering. Or even better might be to switch whole-heartedly to the GNOME numbers, e.g 2.19/2.20. Cheers, Rob -- Rob Bradford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
