Hi, On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 07:36:30 +0100 Martin Dvorak wrote: > Hi, > > I never was fan of the x.99.x/x.9x/etc. version numbering for betas of > new major versions. I've been thinking about stable/development version > numbering recently (and also in the past) and I think it's better to > call such versions as 1.1-alpha5, 1.1-beta3, 2.0-rc2. This means using > the target major version but appending a suffix that marks it's not the > final release. > > What do you think? Are there any issues with this scheme for users > and/or automatic tools, such as package managers in Linux?
If we assume that we will release the final versions shortly after -alpha, -beta, or -rc releases, distributions should not need to care about extra suffix. They can simply package the official 1.1, 1.2.1, etc. versions. > bye, > Martin -- Tero Koskinen <tero.koski...@iki.fi> _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
