Hi Eric wrote: > Why don't we just call it 4.4.1, and 4.4.1.1? This conforms with > windows versioning, and keeps everything numeric.
would be fine with me, but I think that came up already a while ago and people wanted to stay with 3 digits... I would also be ok, just calling this 4.4.2 that way we go a bit faster through version numbers, but then again, we don't really do releases that often... > When we release a beta, we'd just bump the last suffix (unless it was 0 > and thus omitted), and name it beta in the tarball. I think for betas I prefer the 4.4.2.20091105 numbers... since that allows for easy continues releases independent of alpha/beta status and it is also one of the ways suggested for GNU projects... ARUN
