> On 3/28/2012 9:16 AM, Torne Wuff wrote: > > On 28 March 2012 12:21, Jonathan Gordon<jdgo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sounds good to me. Not sure if I like "stable release" though, what > >> are other projects using? perhaps "official release"? > > official release makes it sound like the other builds are not > > official, which is the wrong distinction i'm trying to avoid. My > > experience reading the forums/irc/lists is that nontechnical people do > > not make the connection between "release" and "thing we specifically > > released as a specific thing, as opposed to an autobuild", and thus a > > term that relies on "release" meaning something to people is not > > ideal. Any build we offer for download looks like a release to them :) > > > I thought of "polished release", but that sounds a bit silly. :) What > about something like "LTS (long-term-service) build"? >
Perhaps appending the current builds with the "pre_release_number" would make that more clear? For example: Rockbox-3.11 (3.11 release) Rockbox-pre_3.12-6e6f0c6-120322 (current build on the branch that will eventually become 3.12) Seems to me that linking the current builds to their eventual branch makes it much more clear how they chronologically fit together. Mike
