On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 02:16:58PM -0800, Allison Randal wrote: > The idea is that we keep the yearly major version release and the > half-yearly deprecation point between two major version releases, as we > planned at the developer summit. But, the only thing that really matters > about the version number of the half-yearly deprecation point is that it > be predictable. Using minor version numbers for every monthly release > makes it predictable: > > 1.0 (March, deprecation point) > 1.1 (April) > 1.2 (May) > 1.3 (June) > 1.4 (July, deprecation point) > 1.5 (August) > 1.6 (September) > 1.7 (October) > 1.8 (November) > 1.9 (December) > 2.0 (January, deprecation point) > 2.1 (February) > 2.2 (March) > 2.3 (April) > [...]
I can definitely live with this. The only change I might suggest is that we go ahead and call April 2009 the 1.3 release, so that the July/".6 release" is the deprecation point in 2009 as well. Or, we could skip from 1.3 (June) to 1.6 (July). But it's not worth a debate over -- if others like it, great; if not, then I'm great with the above plan. Pm _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
