On 07/06/12 12:11, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: >> Could we use the same scheme also in bugzilla? I mean: >> >> 3.5.98.1 (3.6.0alpha1) >> 3.5.98.1+ (3.6.0alpha1+daily) >> 3.5.99.1 (3.6.0beta1) >> 3.6.0.1 (3.6.0rc1) > > Yes, a big advantage would be if we coud rework the scheme a little so > that the version number is more or less in accordance with the timeline. > Currently I do not understand "3.5.99.1 (3.6.0beta1)". If that is > Mozilla intention I would prefer something like > > 3.6.0.00x for alphas > 3.6.0.0x0 for betas > 3.6.0.100 for RC (example) and/or release > 3.6.0.200 for RC (example) and/or release > 3.6.0.200 for release(example)
ooh, a release numbering scheme bike shedding thread! how about this then: 3.6.0.x for alpha/beta 3.6.x.y for RC y of release 3.6.x yes, that implies that the first actual release is 3.6.1 and there is no 3.6.0 release, but those never work anyway so who cares ;) _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
