Version Numbers

[John W. A. <jo...@hy...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 21 Feb 2005, at 09:31, Jose' Cruanyes wrote:
> about version number
> IMHO the beta cycle means feature freeze, bugs hunting, but this will 
> never be the case in Quesa, so better use a different numbering like
> 1.7.0
> 1.7.1
> ...
I thought the idea was to release something that is considered stable 
as "x.y[.z]beta[number]", then allow people to thrash it for a while 
(while development continues on a later numbered version). Assuming no 
bugs turn up, it becomes "x.y[.z]" (i.e. 'released' version with the 
same version number) with no changes to anything. If bugs turn up, it's 
another story, of course -- sometimes it's clear how to pull back bug 
fixes from the next version, sometimes it's easier just to abandon that 
release and either rename the current development effort x.y.z or 
abandon x.y.z and increment the number. I rather liked this idea, as it 
gives users what they might expect -- a not-fully-tested beta version, 
plus a stable but older release version -- without freezing anything in 
the development side. Was this not the plan, and if not, what was the 
plan?

> anyway this is not really important what counts is release
Agreed. Preferably with changing version numbers so that users get an 
impression of change.

Keep up the good work, guys -- hopefully I'll have some time to help 
RSN!
- -- 
John Aldis, BF, MMath
"So this is what God feels like, eh?
  In truth I have little power beyond the ability to pull the plug."
   -- WardCunningham
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFCGgo5nxj37eSkoRMRAjyvAJ4koW8Snv6LtQuxKJTnXuORzXaSlwCdHR+z
AgrsGHE5fjHQZowYh5oYAcY=
=+Pw3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----