Christian Boos wrote:
> 2) Linux < 2.6 style:
> - 0.12 LTS, with 0.12.{1,2,3,4,...}
> - 0.13 "unstable", with 0.13.{1,2,3,...}
> when 0.13.y is deemed stable it becomes 0.14
> - 0.14 LTS (...)
That actually sounds pretty good. Having an explicit "LTS" marker
(instead of relying on people knowing that odd versions are unstable) is
a good thing.
> 3) A variant of the above:
> - 0.12 LTS, with 0.12.{1,2,3,4,...}
> - 0.99 "unstable", with 0.99.{1,2,3,...}
> when 0.99.y is deemed stable it becomes 1.0
> - 1.0 LTS, with 1.0.{1,2,3,4,...}
> - 1.1 "unstable" (...)
That sounds even better. Except that I would drop the 0.99 and just make
0.13 become 1.0 instead. Who said you had to count to 0.99 before going
to 1.0?
> I also think it's about time we go "1.0" but last time I
> brought up that topic, a majority of people still didn't feel
> like it was appropriate, so it's probably still just me...
Yep, me too.
> 4) Another variant:
> - 0.12 LTS, with 0.12.{1,2,3,4,...}
> - 0.13 "unstable", with 0.13.0.{1,2,3,...}
> when 0.13.0.y is deemed stable it becomes 0.13.1
> - 0.13 LTS, with 0.13.{1,2,3,4,...}
> - 0.14 "unstable" (...)
So there's already a whole version component that we don't use, and you
want to add another one? You can't be serious ;)
> I like 2) (call me nostalgic), and it would be even better to go
> with 3) but no big deal if people are still averse about a 1.0...
Big +1 for 1.0.
-- Remy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
