Philippe, if I understand correctly you are essentially proposing this
with (2-Backward):
/-0.6.0 /-0.6.1 /-0.6.2 /-0.7.0
/ / / /
0.5.m8----0.6.m1------0.6.m2----0.6.m3-----0.7.m1
Which I find confusing. Also, it doesn't any leave room for updating the
0.6.x releases independently of milestones, should we need it.
I am definitely in favor of having stable milestones, and having users
follow us on those milestones -- assuming we get some users ;). However,
I think this just means that we will stop needing 0.6.x releases once a
stable milestone leaves 0.6 in the dust, because we can have users
download the milestone release directly. Given that we are a pre-1.0
project, I don't think we need to rigorously keep up parallel 0.6.x
releases with milestone releases.
This one, essentially the original proposal, seems pretty rational to me
(I believe like Eclipse):
/-0.6.0--0.6.1 /-0.7.0--0.7.1
/ /
0.5M8-----0.7M1------0.7M2----0.7M3-----0.8M1
as does this (Alec's proposal, if I understand correctly):
/-0.6.0--0.6.1 /-0.7.0--0.7.1
/ /
0.5alpha8-----0.7alpha1------0.7alpha2----0.7alpha3-----0.8alpha1
I like the "M", even with the forward numbering scheme, because our
milestone system has been working relatively well and we can retain the
same terminology. That said, I buy Alec and Ted's argument that "alpha"
isn't going to confuse anyone wrt us being a pre-1.0 project.
Presumably we could add svn revision #s in a way that does not offend
egg versioning...
Cheers,
Katie
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
