On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:53:41AM +0100, Christian Geisert wrote: > > Jeremias Maerki schrieb: > > > Not necessarily. We've called it 0.90alpha1. I'd assume we'd have a > > > 0.90beta or directly a 0.90 (final) first. But I guess that's open for > > > > I thought we do it like 0.91alpha2, ... 0.93 beta ... 1.0 > > > > > discussion. I don't care too much about it. > > > > What do others think?
I see now better what Christian means: number the releases 0.91, 0.92 etc. and append an indicator of our judgment of quality. That would make 0.91alpha, 0.92beta etc., and it makes sense to me. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
