On 23-Aug-08, at 05:38 , Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
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.
+1 (to not naming unstable versions with a numeric version number, but
to continue to use alpha/beta/rc/whatever tags)
Christian.
P.S. I don't use Windows... ever, if I can avoid it... so it's not
just a windows thing, Paul. -cg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
