I needed some time to digest all this myself ;) I've now done that and put it all into a HTML page. That doesn't imply it is the scheme we will finally use, but if so, it saves me some time. I have also described the development process a bit. I think this is vital for understanding why I need certain release numbers. The info is here (with the now irrelevant text at the end of the doc):
http://www.rsyslog.com/doc-version_naming.html I am still a bit undecided if we really need to go v4 or can start this (or whatever else) in the v3 branch... Feedback appreciated. Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:rsyslog- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Biebl > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 12:48 PM > To: rsyslog-users > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] rsyslog version numbering > > 2008/3/28, Johnny Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote: > > > besides that, we could skip the "rc" string and simply use 4.0.12- > 1 - > > > like a build number which is used by some linux distributions. > > > > > > Actually, Red Hat-based distros (at least) use that "-1" for > > internal changes. > > Yeah, please don't use "-1" as version suffix, this is usually > reserved for distros. > -rc? would be ok though. > > Rainer, could you please summarise, what your current idea for the > version numbering is. > With all the different proposals I somehow lost track about the latest > preferred one. > > Cheers, > Michael > -- > Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the > universe are pointed away from Earth? > _______________________________________________ > rsyslog mailing list > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
