On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Scott Gray wrote:

> 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
> ?
> 

Yes, I like it

Jacopo

> Regards
> Scott

Reply via email to