On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 12:24:06AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > On 09 Jul 2001 10:37:58 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > > > * changed version from 2.4.0.1 to 2.4.1 > > > > I wonder how we should number our releases at the moment. We need > > some way to have betas with a leading 2.4... since we can't expect > > to make a Xinerama release without any betas in between. > > Well, there are several possible choices: > > * use 2.4.0.1 (is this understandable that this is beta?) > * use 2.4.1 for beta (not much different from the previous) > * use 2.4.1-0.20010920 or 2.4.1-beta1 (I would stick to numeric x.y.z) > * use temporary names 2.5.x for betas, then return to 2.4.1 > > We may also fork a branch, do 2.5.x betas and then merge to 2.4.1. > But if the plan now is to do stable 2.4.1, forking is not really needed.
Since we won't work in parallel on multiple branches there is no need to create one. I vote for the "2.4.1-betaX" approach. > So my vote is to change to 2.5.0 with or without fork accordingly to the > needs, then release next stable 2.4.x, but never 2.6.x. I agree with the naming schene (2.4/2.5, no 2.6), but a sequence 2.5.0, 2.5.1, 2.4.1 would be confusing. Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
