I like the idea of using numbers only. Why bother with qualifiers. and if it's solve a voting issue as a bonus, that's great. Only what's in the apache official repo should be considered as official distributions.
Alexis 2009/2/19 Matthieu Riou <matthieu.r...@gmail.com> > We're reproducing the following discussion: > > http://markmail.org/thread/o73bu7mo2tqnrv2p > > I don't really have a strong opinion on release names but I should point > out > that: > > 1. RCs aren't fully kosher (because either you re-vote or you release > something that wasn't what people voted on, see above thread). > 2. It's a good idea to use increasing numbers. > > Hence the original 1.3.1 proposition :) > > Matthieu > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote: > > > 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 > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
