On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote:
> The version update notification thing is admittedly a problem, and so it's > true we maybe would need to tweak that. Not changing code most certaily > wasn't the justification for the naming scheme I proposed (slap me the day I > let that be a reason to justify a lame approach). > > Alternate proposals, naysayers? > I like your original proposal s/-m/-ms/. We have to do some work in the version comparator, but it shouldn't be a problem, and it keeps the numbers making the most sense in human-readable form. The only one I would even suggest is using high numbers in the previous version, so 1.998.1, 1.998.2, etc would be milestones and 1.999.1, 1.999.2 would be release candidates for 2.0. It becomes more complicated for minor releases as well. However, while that is convenient and readily comparable by someone who doesn't know the suffix meanings (and solves Scott's issue), I think that is less clear from a human readability perspective. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
