Re: Proposed module: anjuta

[Tristan Van Berkom <tvb gnome org>]

On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 14:17 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> 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.

Many modules in gnome may have arbitrarily chosen to use this version
numbering scheme - personally I like it, nowhere have I seen it enforced
or even officially "preffered".

Regardless of what our personal prefferences are on this angle I think
its obvious that distributors need to read the release notes of
a said tarball before including it - the last thing /I/ want to do
is encourage people to make assumptions based on versioning information
on modules they have no idea about.

Cheers,
                 -Tristan