Here is the answer from Tuomo Valkonen (Ion's creator): > * If we offer a system to compile the program (downloading sources > from the net), should we call the program Ion or Ion3? (the system > compiles the version specificed, if no version is given then the > latest release is compiled, and the system doesn't add anything to > the source, only places it in the fs to fit the distribution scheme). > For example: `Compile Ion 20070902`
There's no such thing as "Ion 20070902". There's "Ion 3rc-20070902", however, i.e. program: Ion, branch/milestone: 3, status: release candidate, snapshot date: 20070902. The license should be quite clear on how you call things. Present Ion3 should not in package names be referred to merely as "Ion", because it is not the latest stable branch; Ion2 is. And even if it was stable, I'd rather have the branch/milestone and even version always be included when mentioning the program for the first time, such as in a package name or listing. (Cf. "We tested a release candidate the window manager Ion 3 (snapshot date 20070902). ... We found that Ion was ... ".) Removes a lot of sources of confusion, when you're clear on the version -- but you only have to mention it once in the beginning. > * If we offer compiled binaries (without source modifications of > course), should we call it Ion for all versions, or Ion only could be > named the stable version (Ion2)?. Source, binary, install script; all the same thing. -- If the kids are united they will never be divided! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Get a free email address with REAL anti-spam protection. http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/1 _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
