Russell Bryant wrote: > I have been having discussions with various members of the development > community > in regards to changes to the way we manage open source Asterisk releases. The > changes that we eventually decide on will determine how we manage the 1.6 > version of Asterisk. I will be posting much more detailed information about > 1.6 > in the near future. > > What I'm looking for right now is some opinions on version numbering. Part of > the working plan for Asterisk 1.6 involves making release candidates for every > 1.6.X release, so that various community members can help with doing > regression > testing on the changes before making the release. > > I proposed calling the release candidates 1.6.3-rc1, 1.6.3-rc2, etc. > > Another proposal has been using 1.5 to indicate that it is a release > candidate. > For example, 1.5.3, 1.5.3.1, 1.5.3.2, etc., would be the release candidates > for > the upcoming 1.6.3 release. > > What is your opinion? I certainly want the release naming to be as obvious as > possible. >
If I remember what was discussed in a recent VoIP users conference, you guys (being digium) were considering moving to a more rapid release schedule similar to how the linux kernel is currently released. IE 1.6.4 would likely contain additional features over 1.6.3 and 1.6.3.1 would contain bug fixes for 1.6.3. That being the case I think the 1.5.x scheme would get confusing very quick. Example: is 1.5.3.1 the second RC for 1.6.3 or the first RC for 1.6.3.1? I would vote for the 1.6.3.x-rc1,rc2 etc scheme. This does begs the question of the purpose of the odd number releases 1.1.x,1.3.x,1.5.x (which don't exist). Will asterisk continue to increment in even number releases just because or will odd numbers be used at some point? -Dave _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
