The semantic versioning site[1] has some examples of what is appropriate, and gives '1.0.0-alpha.1’ as an example of a ‘pre-release version’. In this scheme, Kerby’s releases would be ‘1.0.0-M.1’ and ‘1.0.0-M.2’.
I think ‘M’ would be fine, although I still think that ‘beta’ is clearer, because I wouldn’t be sure what ‘M’ stood for. The only thing to avoid would be ‘RC’ since in the Apache world, a release candidate is NOT a release. Julian [1] http://semver.org/ <http://semver.org/> > On Apr 4, 2016, at 3:37 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le 05/04/16 00:31, Zheng, Kai a écrit : >> Hi Julian, >> >> Thanks for your feedback and suggestion. It would be probably my bad. What >> we want is, by thru some RC releases, the code base can be mature and the >> major 1.0.0 release then be out. I thought we should have used >> 'M'(milestone) instead of 'RC' for this purpose? Emmanuel did mention this >> idea some time before, but considering the change may cause messy we don't >> do it. I guess we can consider different release name strategy after 1.0.0 >> accordingly? > > LMilestone is good when you are changing the API, otherwise going > through many RC is not necessarily bad. > > > It's a choice the project make, it does just convey a message : "we are > not yet ready to get a GA out, but we are working on it". >
