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.
Possibly not, and maybe not all your users understand that. It's easier for them if you make it stick to conventions. > 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. Clearly I disagree. A regular GNOME module would have used either 1.3.x (leading to stable 1.4.x) or 1.9.x (leading to 2.0.x). The 1.9.x versus 1.2.x confusion might happen but it seems less likely. > 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. On the contrary, many people wait until the 0 release to try software, thinking that only then has it become stable. -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
