Walter Bright, el 4 de November a las 02:57 me escribiste: > On 11/4/2013 12:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > >You might want to name the release candidates properly and uniquely, just as > >you > >started to do with the betas. > > It'll follow the 2.063 pattern.
You mean after this release it will be named 2.064.1, etc? Then don't call it a release candidate, is confusing. If is really an rc (which since you don't want to make an official announcement yet, I guess it is), please do what you did with the betas. All the same reasons to name the betas uniquely apply to release candidates. Just change beta1 with rc1 and make everybody happy. Is just one more little step! :) Please, please, please, never, ever overwrite released packages (betas and rc included) with a new one. You should consider them read-only after you create and publish them. Then be consistent with how you announce the releases (beta, rc, final) and the version numbers you are using. Thanks! -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEÑOR BIELSA: CON TODO RESPETO ¿USTED LO VE JUGAR A RIQUELME? -- Crónica TV
