Re: Proposed module: anjuta

On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 14:24 +0200, Naba Kumar wrote:
> Hi,
> On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 13:06 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > Probably because the even number (2.0) suggests (by convention) that
> > it's a stable release. I think it would be best if Anjuta followed
> > GNOME's version number conventions.
> > 
> No confusion should arise since release notes clearly says its alpha and
> I am sure the package maintainers are aware of that fact.
> The development line for Anjuta 2.x starts, naturally, from 2.0.0,
> leaving 1.x for the stable. If we wanted the '0' release to be stable,
> we would have to go with 1.99.x or something, creating a far more
> confusion with 1.x line.
> I don't know what's the best way to switch major version, but that was
> something we found reasonable since people don't generally expect
> stability in '0' releases.
> Thanks.

I think this is reasonable at the moment. I suspect Murray fails to
appreciate that 2.x.x is a complete rewrite. 

When the 2.0.x release is stabilised I think it would be a good idea to
switch over to a GNOME style 2.1.x/2.2.x release numbering. Or even
better might be to switch whole-heartedly to the GNOME numbers, e.g


Rob Bradford <rob robster org uk>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]