Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> Ok, here's my proposal for the version numbering issue. I think we should
> bite the bullet and fix the numbering scheme to something sensible now, even
> though it means changing version 4.07 to be called 4.08. Any objections?
The scheme is good - although, I basically have the same
comments as Michael:
* It is simpler to parse the version numbers if stable
versions at patchlevel 0 also include the patchlevel.
* There is not much point in having the substring "pre" in
the patchlevel of unstable versions - especially, as the
"odd versions are unstable" scheme is becoming more and
more widespread (ie, the need for "pre" as a comment is
not really clear and as the scheme for the third digit is
completely different from stable versions, unstable
version numbers stand out anyway).
But anyway, the main issues are addressed in the scheme, so
I am not feeling too strongly about the above.
Cheers,
Manuel
