[Xastir] Stable release plus version numbering

[Gerry Creager]

Tom Russo wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 03:09:10PM -0500, we recorded a bogon-computron collision of the <r.polivka at sbcglobal.net> flavor, containing:
>> I believe that this is/was the way that the Linux kernel is sequenced. 
>> Up front, it would tell us where the package stands.
> 
> It seems a bit much to kick us up to 2.0.  This is hardly a major release.
> If being consistent with the more common numbering convention is important,
> I'd rather see us consider this a minor release and kick up to 1.9.0 (with 
> development snapshots being considered patches).  The differences between our 
> current stable release and this one are mostly bug fixes, and perhaps a few 
> extra features (like, did we have the default shapefile stuff in there for the 
> 1.8.4 stable release?).
> 
> The more I think on it, the more I think that stable releases should be
> considered a good definition of minor releases, and that snapshots make
> sense as patch releases, since they're invariably just a few bug fixes 
> different from the last stable version.

I concur w/ Tom.  I also hold out for the day when we split out services 
and look at a spatial DBMS (PostGIS?) as when we begin the 2.0.0 series.

Gerry

>> 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 mailing list
>>> Xastir at xastir.org
>>> http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir
>>>
>>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xastir mailing list
>> Xastir at xastir.org
>> http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir
> 

-- 
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager at tamu.edu
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University	
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020  FAX 979.862.3983
MAIL:  AATLT, 3139 TAMU
Physical: 1700 Research Parkway, Suite 160,
College Station, TX 77843-3139