On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 17:28 +0200, Kinkie wrote: > I don't like much not having a fixed "stable" marker much tho, what I'd do is: > - when major bugs are fixed, a .0 release point is taken. After that > during the stabilization phase, milestones are marked with an > additional numeral (e.g. 3.2.0.5) > - when STABLE level is reached, then a .1 release is taken (3.2.1). > After that, it's maintainance mode and new releases are marked by > incrementing the third numeral (e.g. 3.2.5). > > Advantages: > - it's fully-numeral > - it has a fixed "stable" marker (the .1 release). > - it doesn't change much the current numbering approach
I like your proposal a lot more than the current scheme, but what is the value of a "fixed stable marker"? What a fixed marker like that would allow us to do that we cannot do by saying "stable" or "first stable"? The only use I can think of is that it would allow us to detect a stable release in a version number that was assigned 5 years ago (e.g., we will know that 3.1.3 was a stable release even 5 years from now). Since that old branch will no longer be supported by then, we should not need that information often. What other uses are there? Thank you, Alex.
