Re: [ jEdit-devel ] Branching from 4.3pre16 for the next stable release

[Alan E. <ala...@gm...>]

Yes, I agree. The numbering scheme is fine, I just think we should (as
we currently do) hide the 99 when it is in the 3rd position of the
build number, and show the version as just a x.y.z (without the final)
instead.

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Kazutoshi Satoda
<k_s...@f2...> wrote:
> Daniel Hahler wrote:
>> The Debian version comparison is explained here:
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version
>
> Thank you for the link. Now I understood that a negative part of
> build number doesn't ordered as a negative number.
>
> I think staying with 99 pre-number for stable release is better.
>
>> For the package in Ubuntu I'm using 4.3~pre16 for the
>> upstream_version, since I've expected a "4.3" final release.
>
> Then, "4.4.0" seems also OK.
> --
> k_satoda
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by:
> SourcForge Community
> SourceForge wants to tell your story.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
> --
> -----------------------------------------------
> jEdit Developers' List
> jEd...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jedit-devel
>