On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > 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 >> ? > > Or what other ASF projects do: > > 10.04-RC1 > 10.04-RC2 > 10.04 > 10.04.1 > 10.04.2 > > -Adrian
I would prefer to avoid the RC (Release Candidate) suffix because it could be confusing since it is actually a real release, even if not intended to be used in production. Jacopo
