It does. And if we need an alternating stable/unstable version system, that would be why we nominate odd as the unstable one and even as the stable one.
Adam K On 12 September 2010 16:49, Peter Lavender <pla...@internode.on.net> wrote: > FWIW, I'm happy to go with what ever. > > Not having a strong background on versioning and the effects/side effects > and draw backs, I can't comment. > > Doesn't the linux kernel do odd/even versioning for dev and stable? > > > Padre is mostly usable for day to day editing, but there's still a few > pieces that are fairly evil and need to be backgroundified. > > Perhaps we could give ourselves the next 5 releases or so to > concentrate on the things we need to do to call something a 1.0? > > For the three digit thing, do we think that we might switch to version > 2 within 50 releases of 1.0? > > I quite like the Firefox versioning system, which does a lot of > releases but isn't afraid to tag something as a new major revision > just because it didn't require a complete rewrite. > > Adam K > > On 10 September 2010 16:42, Jerome Quelin <jque...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/09/10 14:11 +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote: >>> To fix this, I'd like to propose the following. >>> Padre moves to an odd and even version system >> [...] >>> I'd like to start this straight away, unless anyone has any objections >>> to this mechanism. >> >> i'm not against it - i don't really care. >> >> however, wouldn't it make sense to move to a 3 digits after the dot? at >> 0.70 we have only 30 versions left before 1.00 - that's only 15 for an >> even/odd versioning scheme. >> >> so: >> - 0.700 for stable >> - 0.701 for dev >> - 0.702 for stable >> >> however, this has the drawback of changing the version pattern within a >> major version (the 0.x "branch"), which i hate as a packager. >> >> so i propose that we move to 1.x "branch", since padre is functional for >> day to day editing. and we adopt: >> - 1.000 for stable >> - 1.001 for dev >> - 1.002 for stable >> >> for those that are afraid of the 1.x, remember that it does not mean the >> product is finished. it means that it is working for the basic tasks we >> had in mind (editing and showing the it can be done), and that we'll >> continue to improve it. >> >> ==> wdyt? >> >> jérôme >> -- >> jque...@gmail.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Padre-dev mailing list >> Padre-dev@perlide.org >> http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > Padre-dev mailing list > Padre-dev@perlide.org > http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Padre-dev mailing list > Padre-dev@perlide.org > http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev > > _______________________________________________ Padre-dev mailing list Padre-dev@perlide.org http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev
