Re: [Aperture-devel] naming the upcoming oct 2008 release

[Antoni M. <ant...@gm...>]

2008/10/14 Leo Sauermann <leo...@df...>:
> It was Herko ter Horst who said at the right time 13.10.2008 15:38 the
> following words:
>
> but can we remove the "beta"?
>
> its not beta anymore, in my eyes
>
>
> Somewhat agreed. AFAIK, the subcrawler functionality hasn't been
> officially been part of a release yet, so it could be considered "beta".
>   Or are we satisfied it is stable?
>
> I haven't been involved in version numbering for Aperture in the past,
> so I don't know what the reasoning behind the version numbering has
> been. In general, I don't think we've followed the
> http://aperture.wiki.sourceforge.net/VersionNumbers page, or at least
> not in a way I would have expected.
>
>
> we have stuck to that scheme already and will go on with it,
>
> it was only the "names" that are undecided
>
> best
> Leo
>

I don't see any contradiction. The scheme on the wiki page is from
apache, it's simple (bugfix - minor number, backward compatible new
features - middle number, backward incompatible redesign - major
number). We haven't had any "testing" releases yet. Everything was
beta. Now that we're out of beta we'll need to think about branding
releases we consider "unstable" - when/if we (ever :) decide to
release them. The Aduna process (alphas,betas,rcs) was good for sesame
since much work was being done, and the api itself is very low-level
so it's important to ensure proper stability. For us it may be
overkill.

But as I said, the problem is non-existent at the moment. We'll return
to it when we think seriously about aperture 2.0.

-- 
Antoni Myłka
ant...@gm...