On Feb 1, 2013, at 2:34 AM, Tom White wrote: > Whereas Arun is proposing > > 2.0.0-alpha, 2.0.1-alpha, 2.0.2-alpha, 2.1.0-alpha, 2.2.0-beta, 2.3.0 > > and the casual observer might expect there to be a stable 2.0.1 (say) > on seeing the existence of 2.0.2-alpha. > > The first three of these are already released, so I don't think we > could switch to the Semantic Versioning scheme at this stage. We could > for release 3 though. >
I agree that would have been slightly better, unfortunately it's too late now - a new versioning scheme would be even more confusing! Would it better to have 2.0.3-alpha, 2.0.4-beta and then make 2.1 as a stable release? This way we just have one series (2.0.x) which is not suitable for general consumption. I'm ok either way, but I want to just make a decision and move on to making the release asap, appreciate a quick resolution. thanks, Arun
