On Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 10:22:32 UTC, foobar wrote:
To summarize:
2. The version scheme is meaningless. Please check out http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/#firefox as an example. It's perfectly clear, you can choose what Mozilla calls a channel - i.e "release" or "beta".
This is a poor example as it doesn't show how the development team develops these versions.
If we are going to have a branch supported separate from the beta/dev builds then we need a way to say that this stable version is newer but is not as new as the beta/dev.
If we release 2.61 as a stable, we would then develop new features in which version? 2.62 beta 1? If so, when we release 2.61 with a bug fix which version do we release? 2.62? 2.61 stable 2?
You are right that version numbers have absolutely no meaning, I don't remember if it was you, but they are also not as important as the process improvements. However if we assign meaning to numbers there can be benefit. Mozilla basically just did away with the Major version. (I say we do a Linux and leave the 2 then realize it has no meaning and up it to 3 when we reach the age of the 2.0 kernel)
We should combine your beta with an added version number. 2.61.0 => bugfixes => 2.61.1 2.61.0 => newfeatures => 2.62.0 beta 1 2.62 => preparing for stabilizing => 2.62 rc1 just some thoughts.
