This came up during benchmarking. It's a bit hard to talk about benchmarking because one has to understand our version scheme where
- darcs 2.3.97.x refers to darcs 2.4 alpha x - darcs 2.3.98.x refers to darcs 2.4 beta x - darcs 2.3.99.x refers to darcs 2.4 rc x See http://wiki.darcs.net/Benchmarks The scheme was designed to solve a practical issue, that you could not use things other than numbers for Hackage version numbers (probably a feature, not a bug). But it has its drawbacks in that people are frequently confused. I recommend that we revise our version scheme. Starting from the July Darcs release, I vote we start incrementing numbers in the odd/even fashion. For example, come July, we would release a darcs 2.5.0.x for darcs 2.6 alphas darcs 2.5.1.x for darcs 2.6 betas darcs 2.5.2.x for darcs 2.6 release candidates If we wanted to accommodate point releases, we could add another column of numbers (darcs 2.5.1.0.x would therefore correspond to darcs 2.6.1 alpha x), but that's likely to be overkill. My hope is that this scheme would be a lot more intuitive and require less explanation. We can still informally refer to 2.5.0.x as 2.6 alpha, but at least we'll avoid confusing 2.5 with 2.4. This is our release manager's call, naturally. My two cents towards a freshly painted bikeshed :-) -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
