On 29.3.2007, at 0.03, Frank Cusack wrote:
On March 28, 2007 4:35:50 PM -0400 John Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:What this model does is to make many more small releases (no more RC129),each with a stable feature set.I don't see how that's different than a/b/rc numbering. You can still cut as many releases as you like. 1.1.0 1.2.0b1 1.2.0b2 1.2.0rc1 1.1.1 1.2.0rc2 1.2.0rc3 1.2.0 And of course concurrently you can have 2.0{a,b,rc}.
I think I like this. 1.1.alpha1 -> alpha2, etc. contains the actual new feature development. Once the major features seem to be finished, 1.1.beta* releases come. Then one or two 1.1.rcs and finally 1.1.0 release. So pretty much the same as how Dovecot v1.0 was done, except this time the beta/rc switches won't happen too early. :)
I don't think packaging is going to be that big of a problem. If the packagers can't handle that, then just don't package it. Development versions don't really need binary packages anyway.. And for those using the binary packages, the alpha/beta/rc in the version make it pretty easy to understand what kind of a release it is.
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
