Does this mean that my suggestion to generalize to 8.2.x and 9.1.x etc. was rejected? I still feel that this could be more useful, because it would map the milestones to the EOL policy for releases. That is, anything in the 8.2.x milestone will be dropped when we hit 9.2.0, etc. And, as mentioned before, this would allow the least significant version number to be managed with the tagging scheme; otherwise we'll have to deal with the messiness of adding point release milestones on the fly...
Can we rename the current 8.2.0 to 8.2 (or 8.2.x) and 9.1.0 to 9.1 (or 9.1.x) instead? - Eben On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Kim Quirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > New milestone created. > Kim > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 03:38:25AM +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Eben Eliason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Make sense. Wonder why Michael has been using the rel- prefix? >> >> I attached the 'rel-' prefix because I think it very likely that we're >> going to invent other tags involving release numbers. >> >>> I agree, I think we should just get rid of update.x. >> >> This has been the plan since the last nomenclature switch. >> >> Michael >> _______________________________________________ >> Devel mailing list >> Devel@lists.laptop.org >> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel >> > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
