Re: Proposed module: anjuta

["Elijah Newren" <newren gmail com>]

On 1/10/07, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 10:04 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> > 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".
> [snip]
>
> Maybe they should be mentioned for Desktop (and Admin, etc) modules. At
> the moment they are just mentioned for Platform and Bindings modules:
> http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleRequirements/Platform

They were intended for the desktop AFAICT when the GEP on this issue
was written:
 http://developer.gnome.org/gep/gep-4.html
But, as the document says, this was never meant as a rigid rule but
just a "preferred" method.  (Metacity, as per Havoc's setup and
request, has always ignored the guidelines for the micro version
number)

I agree with Murray that using e.g. 2.1.x or something of the sort (if
you wanted to avoid 1.99.x) would have been a better indication for an
alpha release.  At least, that's my opinion.  I'd also strongly
encourage adoption of GNOME's major and minor numbering for releases
prior to inclusion.  While not strictly necessary, it really helps
users, the bugsquad, the release team, and I'm sure others.  :)

Cheers,
Elijah