On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > > On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> >>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jacopo, >>>> >>>> What exactly does it mean to create an "alpha" release, compared to what >>>> we have now where we create a release branch? >>> >>> It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group >>> of contributors because the we can guarantee that it is full compliant with >>> ASF license requirements. >> >> Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me. I'm not entirely >> clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a, 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the >> stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?) >> > > Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is > "stable" from what is not; in your example, of course 10.04a is not stable; > however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1. > I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we > could follow the following strategy: adding the prefix "alpha-" to all the > releases we feel like should not be considered "stable". > For example: > alpha-10.04.a > alpha-10.04.b > Then when we feel we can consider the release stable: > 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04) > 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04) > or even: > stable-10.04 > stable-10.04.1 > > Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha > release and then continue increasing the suffix: > alpha-10.04.1 > alpha-10.04.2 > stable-10.04.3 > stable-10.04.4 > > but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the "stable" release will > start with 10.04.3)
I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to describing each release, the download page and perhaps a README file can help as well. How about: 10.04-alpha-1 10.04-alpha-2 10.04 10.04.1 10.04.2 ? Regards Scott
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
