Re: version numbering (was: 0.35 => Beta => 1.0 schedule)

On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 03:07:00PM -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> On to the proposal:
>
> Let's use "odd==unstable,even=stable" in the minor numbers, but with
> an "unstable-" *prefix* on all the odd-numbered releases. That way,
> users don't need to know about the even/odd thing. The unstable
> releases will always be clearly marked as unstable.

+1 this works great.

> One objection that was raised agains "-unstable" as a suffix is that
> non-numeric suffixes might make packaging more difficult. I'm not
> sure how severe that problem is, but anyway it's probably less severe
> when the word is a prefix. Also, we don't really want to optimize for
> packaging of unstable releases, I would think.

Won't matter. The problem with the words being in the release is
compromised of when 1.1-unstable eventually becomes 1.1. If someone
packages an unstable version it can show as newer than 1.1. There are
of course ways around this in most packaging systems. However, your
proposal makes this issue pretty much moot.

The only question then is if packagers will mark 1.1 packages as
unstable or for that matter if they should even be packaging them. But
really that's up to the distro/project's policies and really is of no
consequence to you guys.

Besides as you pointed out if someone does with the odd/even system you
can recognize right away that it is an unstable package when someone
comes around asking for help with it.

-- 
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org