Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote (29 May 2015 15:51:09 GMT) : > On Fri 2015-05-29 11:19:17 -0400, intrigeri wrote:
>> it popped up to my mind that our current versioning scheme is a bit >> painful whenever we need to insert an unexpected release: e.g. >> when we've put out 1.3.1, it "stole" a version number that was >> "reserved", which can result in some confusion, e.g. when looking up >> planning information in past email. >> >> Perhaps we should call all our expected releases a.b.c, and "bonus" >> intermediary releases a.b.c.d? In the case at hand, instead of 1.3, >> 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, this would have given 1.3.0, 1.3.0.1, and 1.3.1. > i'd also be fine with only "reserving" (targeting > for non-immediate changes) a.b, and treating any a.b.c release as an > intermediary release. This would remove the ability to distinguish major releases (e.g. 1.4 in our current versioning scheme) from point-releases (e.g. 1.4.1), no? Cheers, -- intrigeri _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to [email protected].
