Re: Version numbers

2005-11-27 Thread Simon Pepping 
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote:
 On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:53:41AM +0100, Christian Geisert wrote:
  Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
   Not necessarily. We've called it 0.90alpha1. I'd assume we'd have a
   0.90beta or directly a 0.90 (final) first. But I guess that's open for
  
  I thought we do it like 0.91alpha2, ... 0.93 beta ... 1.0
  
   discussion. I don't care too much about it.
  
  What do others think?

I see now better what Christian means: number the releases 0.91, 0.92
etc. and append an indicator of our judgment of quality. That would
make 0.91alpha, 0.92beta etc., and it makes sense to me.

Simon

-- 
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl

Re: Version numbers

2005-11-26 Thread Simon Pepping 
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:53:41AM +0100, Christian Geisert wrote:
 Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
  Not necessarily. We've called it 0.90alpha1. I'd assume we'd have a
  0.90beta or directly a 0.90 (final) first. But I guess that's open for
 
 I thought we do it like 0.91alpha2, ... 0.93 beta ... 1.0
 
  discussion. I don't care too much about it.
 
 What do others think?

Upping two different numbers at the same time is not logical. I go
with Jeremias' idea, but I do not care too much either.

Simon

-- 
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl