From: Maurice L. <mj...@ga...> - 2002-12-23 04:54:26
|
Alan W. Irwin writes: > (2) What should the package version be? I vote for 5.2.0 rather than 6.0.0 > just because I want to conserve numbers. There are lots of major changes in > our future so I don't want to start running into double-digit major numbers > any sooner than we have to. The other issue, is that from the Linux user > perspective there is not much major change in this version. Under the hood > there is of course major change with the new configuration system, but once > the version is installed (i.e., what a binary rpm or deb user will see) the > user won't notice huge changes. I think we should go to 5.99a, then after that 5.99b, 5.99c, etc. When the package is finally completely stable then release it as 6.0. :-P -- Maurice LeBrun mj...@ga... Research Organization for Information Science and Technology of Japan (RIST) |