Christian Theune wrote: [snip]
Zope X3 <base-version>/CC-r<release-version>
where a "0" can be ommitted:
Zope X3 3.1CC Zope X3 3.1/CC-r1 Zope X3 3.1/CC-r2
This is a scheme I see in distributions a lot to identify changes made by a distributor to an original version of a package. (E.g. apache-2.0.53-r1, apache-2.0.53-r2, ...)
Any opposition to this?
I don't understand why such complication is necessary. Why do we need to name "3" twice in the release name? I never quite understood why we're saying Zope X Three Three Dot One, and not just Zope X Three Dot One. It's fairly confusing, I think.
I don't really understand the motivations behind CC-r1 and all that. If this is about bugfix releases, why not go for the industry standard approach, used by Zope 2, which would be:
i.e. major, minor, bugfix. We don't need to invent new systems here..
The only non-standard part here is the X, which is a bit of a bother and will get us into trouble eventually if a Zope 3 proper is ever released, as I can't see how we'd avoid situations where we'd have to say: "Zope 3 is actually Zope X3.4 + Zope 2 compatibility extensions"... I personally wouldn't mind if we just dropped the X, but I can imagine some political repercussions to that. :)
Martijn _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3email@example.com Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com