On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 09:26:59PM +0900, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > I think we may have to consider 3.1 as an incompatible version. It > should not have been released as stable with this incompatibility.
I am so confused about the release numbering and what is deemed stable. The only version numbered 3.1 that I see is 3.1.0-beta. Was there a non-beta 3.1 version? Is beta considered "stable"? Are 'rcX' versions stable? This came up yesterday I think, but why bother with 'rc' tags if the point release number goes up every time a new RC goes out - typically I think of RCs as a way of doing something between a beta and a final release, so the version number never changes...if the RC goes well, a non-RC tarball is produced using the *exact same code*! In my mind, the 3-x series has never been stable, because there's always been an alpha, beta, or rc in the source name. Regards, -- AJ Lewis Software Engineer Quantum Corporation Work: 651 688-4346 email: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this transmission may be confidential. Any disclosure, copying, or further distribution of confidential information is not permitted unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing by Quantum. Quantum reserves the right to have electronic communications, including email and attachments, sent across its networks filtered through anti virus and spam software programs and retain such messages in order to comply with applicable data security and retention requirements. Quantum is not responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the substance of this communication or for any delay in its receipt. _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
