Re: Proposed module: anjuta

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

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.

Possibly not, and maybe not all your users understand that. It's easier
for them if you make it stick to conventions.

> 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.

Clearly I disagree. A regular GNOME module would have used either 1.3.x
(leading to stable 1.4.x) or 1.9.x (leading to 2.0.x). The 1.9.x versus
1.2.x confusion might happen but it seems less likely.

> 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.

On the contrary, many people wait until the 0 release to try software,
thinking that only then has it become stable.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com