Using 2-digit subversions ("1.01") looks too similar to "1.0.1" kind of
naming. I'd rather we reserve those numbers for bug-fix releases that
don't add any new functionality.
For standard distributions, I prefer we use the simpler 1-digit
subversions. In my mind, if we make 9 small updates after "1.0", the
10th update really should get labelled "2.0". Maybe the functionality
in that "2.0" isn't very major from the previous releases, but it's
still an increase in functionality over "1.0".
-jh
Aitor Santamaría wrote:
> May I suggest two decimal cyphers? (1.01, 1.02, 1.03... 1.99)
> 9 small updates to FreeDOS 1.0 may not make FreeDOS 2.0.
>
> Aitor
>
> 2006/10/29, Jim Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Ewwww! I'd rather not go back to "beta9 SP2" etc naming scheme. The
>> next FreeDOS should _not_ be a "FreeDOS 1.0 SP1". The next FreeDOS is
>> indeed an incremental improvement with no major changes (i.e. updated
>> packages, etc) then "FreeDOS 1.1" would be acceptable. A larger jump in
>> functionality could be "FreeDOS 1.5" .. and if the changes are big
>> enough, "FreeDOS 2.0". Let's avoid "1.0.1" kind of naming unless it's a
>> bug-fix release right after the main release of the distro.
>>
>> -jh
>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
