On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:03:47 -0500 James Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh sorry... I haven't been following the 'versioning standards' debate > very closely... For the last little while the .x.NOTHING release has > been dubbed "stable"... So in my chronic skimming I assumed we'd call > .9 STABLE and then usher in the .9 development series. Sorry, I'll > catch up on the 'versioning stuff'. It's seems matter less when "old" > is > 6 hours :) > > Yes, we should wait a prudent amount of time to make sure fixes work > as advertised... > There are no unstable or stable versions. Most of the releases are more unstable than current CVS because they are just a snapshot of it. Besides that everything below 1.0 should be considered a development or testing release. I think rushing to 0.9.0 will require alot of 0.9.x versions because 1.0 is far out of reach considering the features and level of stability needed. Personally I don't care if we just skip some MICRO/PATCH versions of the 0.8.x and go straight to 0.9.x but I don't see why the 0.9 branch should have a decent amount of additional releases compared to 0.8.x. Jon Daniel
