[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bug#13578: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases
From: |
Jack Kelly |
Subject: |
Re: bug#13578: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository |
Date: |
Fri, 01 Feb 2013 06:58:14 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) |
Diego Elio Pettenò <address@hidden> writes:
> Okay that sounds reasonable. I would be more toward 24 than 18 — maybe
> going for 18 to the next "beta"-quality automake, 24 to the final
> release. Speaking of which I would suggest that we call X.0 the betas,
> and suggest general usage only when X.1 is out...
IMHO, that seems like a great way to cause trouble for unsuspecting
users. (Anyone remember KDE4.0?) Can you expand on why you think it's a
good plan?
Is there a system like X.beta1, X.beta2, ..., X.0 that is going to fit
the ordering system for most package managers? Bonus points if it works
in asciibetical order, too.
-- Jack
- Re: bug#13578: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository, (continued)
- Re: bug#13578: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository, Peter Johansson, 2013/01/29
- Re: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository, Daniel Herring, 2013/01/29
- Re: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository, Eric Dorland, 2013/01/30
- Re: [IMPORTANT] A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository, Diego Elio Pettenò, 2013/01/31