[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Version numbering
From: |
Scott James Remnant |
Subject: |
Re: Version numbering |
Date: |
Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:34:54 +0100 |
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 10:15, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> > I didn't understand your proposal, but I hope you are not
> > planning to make 2.2 < 2.3a < 2.3. That would be counter
> > intuitive. IMHO any numbering scheme ought to work with `ls -v'.
>
> Actually, that is what I'm proposing: I've had to explain it many, many
> times
> over the years, and people just expect to see alpha/beta releases named after
> the final release they are heading towards.
>
> Your point about `ls -v' is a good one though. I'll put an extra `-' before
> the letter:
>
Not sure whether it's a concern, but generally most packaging systems
(RPM springs to mind) do not allow a '-' in the package's upstream
version.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Re: Version numbering, (continued)
- Re: Version numbering, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2003/09/30
- Re: Version numbering, Bernd Jendrissek, 2003/09/30
- RE: Version numbering, Howard Chu, 2003/09/30
- Re: Version numbering, Scott James Remnant, 2003/09/30
- Re: Version numbering, Dalibor Topic, 2003/09/30
- Re: Version numbering, Gary V. Vaughan, 2003/09/30
- Re: Version numbering, Scott James Remnant, 2003/09/30
- Re: Version numbering, Gary V. Vaughan, 2003/09/30
- Re: Version numbering, Gary V. Vaughan, 2003/09/30
- Re: Version numbering, Gary V. Vaughan, 2003/09/30
- Re: Version numbering,
Scott James Remnant <=
- Re: Version numbering, Earnie Boyd, 2003/09/30
Re: Version numbering, Peter O'Gorman, 2003/09/29