Well, I'm on the fence. On the one hand, I doubt that it helps much to skip the release number but granted, it might help for the bookkeeping in rather strange cases. On the other hand, it can suck a bit to not have a 1.0.0 version for example but at the same time, it's not super important either as I don't think we should worry about "marketing versions" much.
Overall, I guess I'm slightly in favor of A but mostly because of the _can_ v.s. the _must_ of B. I think we should just let the release manager of the vote make that decision on a case by case basis (especially, as we clearly have no consensus on the topic). +1 for A (assuming its a _can_ and not a _must_) regards, Karl On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote: > On 2/4/11 11:11, Stuart McCulloch wrote: >> >> On 4 February 2011 16:09, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote: >> >>> So far, we are tied. :-) >> >> I guess that means you get the casting vote ;) > > No, no. I'm maintaining my 0. :-) > > Perhaps Karl has an opinion. > > -> richard > >>> On 2/4/11 3:50, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>> >>>> Following the discussion, I'm starting a vote to decide on a policy >>>> for failed releases. >>>> >>>> [ ] A - Releases following a failed release can reuse the same version >>>> [ ] B - Releases following a failed release must use a different >>>> version >>>> >>>> The vote will be opened for at least 72 hours. >>>> Happy voting! >>>> > -- Karl Pauls karlpa...@gmail.com
