Jason Dagit <[email protected]> writes: > So, Eric explained to me on IRC that if we went with this last 'hybrid' > approach we would try to avoid the alpha/beta/RC terminology and that the only > officially accepted version names would be the numeric ones. So 2.5.97.x > would > be "official" but if someone said 2.6 alpha they are being informal and we > shouldn't assume a specific version number to match it. And that he only > mentioned the beta/alpha stuff above to bridge terminology.
Well, I find it *much* more intuitive to talk in alpha/beta/rc terms, which have relatively well-defined meaning, than in numbers. The natural way to express these things is using the ~-convention used by Debian... however, it would need Cabal and Hackage support, which won't be available for a while even if we went and implemented it now. (Under this, the version numbers would look like 2.4~beta1, 2.4~rc1, 2.4, with the system understanding that 2.4~beta1 < 2.4~rc1 < 2.4, which is achieved by sorting alphabetically on letters (a < b < r) and by sorting ~ before \epsilon (the empty word), which is otherwise first (so 2.5 < 2.5.1).) Yours, Petr. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
