On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alex Boisvert <boisv...@intalio.com> wrote:
> The confusion comes from the fact that we pseudo-released 1.3. It should > have been a RC1. > > I don't think it's a good idea to use version number without qualifiers if > they are not real releases. Now version 1.3 has been "released" but > there's > no mention of it on the web site, there was no vote, etc. The question is: does anyone have a copy they're using, thinking it's the official 1.3 release? > > > The first question many people will have when they download 1.3.1 is "What > happened to 1.3?" 1.3.1 * Fixed issue with packaging, new version no. to remove confusing with pulled-back release 1.3. 1.3 * Pulled back due to issue with packaging. Assaf > > > alex > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.r...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisv...@intalio.com > >wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.r...@gmail.com > >wrote: > >> > >>> PS: Did you mean "Cut a new 1.3 release" ? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Mmh no, I've already cut 1.3 and if we re-release it's going to be a > new > >>> version number, otherwise we'll end up with some confusion. Hence > 1.3.1. > >>> > >> > >> I guess I'm already confused... :-| 1.3 was not officially released so > >> where's the harm? > >> > > > > A few people already downloaded it and tried it. That's a first chance of > > confusion. And later when we'll ask "which version are you running?" and > the > > answer is 1.3, which 1.3 does that mean? Version numbers are cheap. > > > > I remember we had a similar discussion some time ago on this ML about 1.2 > > or 1.1, we re-released the same version but the consensus back then was > that > > it was "wrong" :) > > > > Matthieu > > > > > >> > >> alex > >> > > > > >
