Hi, I intentionally released as 0.0.yyyymmdd, such that if people make RPM or other packages out of it and release, a 0.1 package would look newer than it in the RPM's point of view. I really recommend you update the dev guide, otherwise, as soon as someone has installed bicon-20040401, he cannot upgrade to bidcon-x.y anymore.
behdad On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Mohammed Elzubeir wrote: > On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 17:51, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is my great pleasure to announce that BiCon 0.0.20040401 "Is > > this the fake release or the one from yesterday" has been > > released. > > Salam, > > This is for both Karouri and Behdad -- please note that alpha releases > should be named as follows: pkgname-yyyymmdd and not pkgname > X.Y.yyyymmdd as it has been named in BiCon's release. > > Despite the fact that I now happen to like the way Behdad has named it, > this is not how it is put in the Dev-Guide. > > Now that this has already been released this way, I would like to know > if others would like to make that change in the DevGuide. > > Alpha relases would bare the major.minor version number plus the > snapshot date. In case of a never released version a 0.0 version would > be placed. (I know I personally like it). > > On another note, MYousif has created a Slackware package for it, it > would be nice if this package is uploaded to the sf.net downloads area. > > Regards, > Mohammed Elzubeir > > _______________________________________________ > Developer mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer > > --behdad behdad.org _______________________________________________ Developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
