On 08/03/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
>
> > We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we don't
> > get confused in the future.
less confusing (in the long run) and more future proof not to use
version monikers
the traditional 0.x is a good approach for most open source projects
(when pushing towards a 1.0) but IMHO harmony needs milestones and so
adopting a 0.x version numbering system wouldn't work very well.
I completely disagree with your views.
> Please not 1.0M1. Please please please.
+1
there are lots of reasons not to use versions numbers for this kind of release
here's one example: 1.0M1 confuses automatic dependency management systems
Please. Give me one system that can't handle a major/minor/qualifier
version number.
Alex.
