[Xastir-dev] Stable release plus version numbering
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Wed Mar 28 12:16:23 EDT 2007
Personally, I think we should go with the conformant version numger.
It's a little misleading to kick up to 2.0 in a non-major release,
but, such
is the price of a version-number schema change.
In this case, I think there is more value to compliant version numbers
than the small amount of confusion that it will create.
Just my $0.02.
Owen
On Mar 28, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Curt, WE7U wrote:
>
> I think we should put out a stable release as soon as possible.
>
> This seems like a good time to do it as it has been some months
> since the last, plus the codebase has been fairly stable, with
> mostly bug-fixes going in for a while.
>
> This is just a feeler to see if anyone has any major headaches with
> it. If not, how about a release date sometime in the first couple
> of weeks of April?
>
> This would either be release 1.8.6 or we could start using the
> recommended numbering scheme and go with 2.0:
>
> <http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-Release-Practice-HOWTO/index.html>
>
> The third digit is supposed to be patch levels for a release, as in
> major.minor.patch numbering. If we adopted this strategy then we
> could go with 2.1 for our next development version and 2.2 for the
> following stable release.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Curt, WE7U. APRS Client Comparisons: http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
> "Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
> "Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
> "The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
> _______________________________________________
> Xastir-dev mailing list
> Xastir-dev at xastir.org
> http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir-dev
More information about the Xastir-dev
mailing list