Paul Benedict wrote:
What would you think of if 2.0.10 was voted as beta, and then 2.0.11 would take the place of RC1-RC10 build list. [...] This is, in a way, similar to the odd-even release versioning scheme.
It's surely my Windows-related background but I wouldn't recommend to name a binary "2.0.11" if it is not at least as stable as its predecessor "2.0.10". The odd-even versioning is very subtle with regard to stability and might surprise to not say upset unaware users. If a binary is a not-yet-stable-for-production release, then we should explicity name it like that by means of RC/alpha/beta.
Benjamin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
