On 1/10/07, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 10:04 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > > Many modules in gnome may have arbitrarily chosen to use this version > > numbering scheme - personally I like it, nowhere have I seen it > > enforced > > or even officially "preffered". > [snip] > > Maybe they should be mentioned for Desktop (and Admin, etc) modules. At > the moment they are just mentioned for Platform and Bindings modules: > http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleRequirements/Platform
They were intended for the desktop AFAICT when the GEP on this issue was written: http://developer.gnome.org/gep/gep-4.html But, as the document says, this was never meant as a rigid rule but just a "preferred" method. (Metacity, as per Havoc's setup and request, has always ignored the guidelines for the micro version number) I agree with Murray that using e.g. 2.1.x or something of the sort (if you wanted to avoid 1.99.x) would have been a better indication for an alpha release. At least, that's my opinion. I'd also strongly encourage adoption of GNOME's major and minor numbering for releases prior to inclusion. While not strictly necessary, it really helps users, the bugsquad, the release team, and I'm sure others. :) Cheers, Elijah _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list