> On Dec 29, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Geert Janssens <geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be> > wrote: > > Op vrijdag 29 december 2017 10:11:08 CET schreef Alen Siljak: >> I'd like to add that, to me, the difference between stable and unstable >> version is obvious enough if I see v2.8.0-alpha1, 2.8.0-alpha2, >> 2.8.0-beta1, 2.8.0-rc1, and then 2.8.0. I see no need for separate version >> numbers. > > That's a good point. I should check though whether our build system can > handle > this. If it does or if we can make it so, using explicit alpha/beta/rc > strings > would be very clear. It would be also require some getting used to as until > now we never made an explicit distinction between alpha/beta/rc (though we > imply it sometimes in warnings). Should we ? And if so, what would be the > criterion ?
I don’t think that the distros would like that scheme. They want suffixes separated by a hyphen to be reserved for their own nefarious purposes (mostly designating releases with back ported patches from the project’s VCS). Better, I think, to use x.9y or perhaps x.9yy for unstable releases. Regards, John Ralls _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
