I think that Alec is right here on alphaness. As far as the rest of the numbering, i think it's the inclusion of the milestone number in the version number that is the source of the problems. Most apache projects don't do this. There are nightly builds, which are versioned by date, and then alphas, beta, RC's and finals. The only projects that I am aware of that use milestones are Eclipse and Mozilla. The Eclipse folks use a number scheme similar to the one being proposed (see <http://eclipse.org/downloads/>). They also use a datestamped nightly build. I wasn't able to find any milestone builds off of Mozilla.org at all, but I did find the nightlies <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/>. Ted On Nov 29, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Alec Flett wrote: 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. ---- Ted Leung Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF) PGP Fingerprint: 1003 7870 251F FA71 A59A CEE3 BEBA 2B87 F5FC 4B42 |
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
