On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 07:36:41 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 15:24 +0200, mike james wrote:
> The current release is 2.063.2, but it's the first time that
> we've actually
> released point releases like that, so there are likely to be
> places saying
> 2.063 instead of 2.063.2.
Maybe it's time to make the odd-numbered releases the work in
progress releases and the even-numbered releases the official
releases?
Everyone, cf. Linux, who used to operate such a strategy has now
stopped. A release is a release and should be releasable.
Finding
problems in a release is natural which is why the maj.min.bug
release
numbering is so popular. The issue here is that the releases
should be
numbered this way always so as to make a monotonic increasing
sequence.
Thus 2.063 should have been numbered 2.63.0.
Agreed, however we should also have a pre-release package for
testing that is clearly marked as a pre-release, it can go on a
separate web page to avoid any possibility of confusion.
The current release is showing as both 2.63.0 and 2.63 but I
thought it was supposed to be 2.63.2 everywhere. This is very
confusing.
--rt
