Heikki Toivonen wrote:
I completely disagree here, at least in terms of alpha. It is standard practice to have <version>alpha to indicate that <version> is not out yet. I think if we talk about 0.7 alpha 1, people are not going to think that 1.0 is near.If we start talking about alphas and betas now, some people could get the impression that Chandler 1.0 is almost out of the door, which is obviously not the case. We'd rather avoid that. I feel like we're really bucking all the common trends in versioning, both open source and closed - why not look at some existing projects and look at what they do? If people are complaining that our versioning is confusing, then inventing a new mechanism is not going to help the situation. Alec
|
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
