Martin Dvorak wrote: > I never was fan of the x.99.x/x.9x/etc. version numbering for betas of
> new major versions. I've been thinking about stable/development version > numbering recently (and also in the past) and I think it's better to > call such versions as 1.1-alpha5, 1.1-beta3, 2.0-rc2. This means using > the target major version but appending a suffix that marks it's not the > final release. > > What do you think? Are there any issues with this scheme for users > and/or automatic tools, such as package managers in Linux? Debian supports this using a tilde to separate the "target major version" and the "suffix", e.g. 1.1~alpha5, 1.1~beta3, 2.0~rc2. I don't know about other distros. -- Ludovic Brenta. _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
