On Thursday 11 October 2007 12:45:45 Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> People who know little should not be *trying* to interpret version
> numbers; they should be using what a packager, a website, or a
> knowledgeable other source *tells* them to use.
This I disagree with, fundamentally. People should be
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 04:21:09PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> Anyway, following that logic, go for 1.5.99-rc2 ?
Please don't.
That parses as "the second release candidate for 1.5.99."
Really.
To everyone.
I'm not much for .99 in the first place, but you get one or the other;
not both.
C
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:47:52AM -0500, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> One of the problems with this traditional approach is that it's not obvious
> unless you know what "rc" means. In the case of someone new to software
> development, I want them never to assume that "1.6.0-rc2" means "1.6.0
> plus s
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> This method is no less obvious than "rc1" for the untrained and ensures that
> people who do not wish to become guinea pigs will remain out of that arena
> (i.e. if they only choose the version that sorts to the bottom of the
> directory, they will always be running a relea
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:47:52AM -0500, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> One of the problems with this traditional approach is that it's not obvious
> unless you know what "rc" means. In the case of someone new to software
> development, I want them never to assume that "1.6.0-rc2" means "1.6.0
> plus
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 12:54:42 Russell Bryant wrote:
> I have been having discussions with various members of the development
> community in regards to changes to the way we manage open source Asterisk
> releases. The changes that we eventually decide on will determine how we
> manage the 1
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:54:42 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
> I proposed calling the release candidates 1.6.3-rc1, 1.6.3-rc2, etc.
>
> Another proposal has been using 1.5 to indicate that it is a release
> candidate. For example, 1.5.3, 1.5.3.1, 1.5.3.2, etc., would be the
> release candidates for t
My opinion:
1.4 is a branch.
current trunk should be called 1.5
1.5 should be 1.5.1.1, 1.5.1.2 ,1.5.1.3,1.5.2
In the above, X.X.Y denotes the "stable" version. Any changes to that code,
would use the next point value. 1.5.1.Z
You do not change to 1.5.2."0" until it has been tested, thus 1.5.2 wou
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 02:10:54PM -0400, SIP wrote:
[snip]
> I think that using 1.5.x as the name for a release candidate for 1.6 is
> pretty close to as unintuitive as it can possibly be.
> 1.6.Xrc-Y is a strikingly MORE intuitive naming scheme for 1.6 release
> candidates.
mutt uses the x.y
Russell Bryant wrote:
> I have been having discussions with various members of the development
> community
> in regards to changes to the way we manage open source Asterisk releases. The
> changes that we eventually decide on will determine how we manage the 1.6
> version of Asterisk. I will be
rc1, rc2 is the best choice for me.
Best Regards. Emiliano Vazquez.
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion"
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:54 PM
Subject: [asterisk-
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 12:54:42PM -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
> What is your opinion? I certainly want the release naming to be as obvious as
> possible.
Wikipedia has something to say on this (by which, of course, I mean me
:-)...
The traditional approach to this is, roughly
1.5.8
1.5.9
1.5.
On Wednesday October 10 2007 2:15 pm, Doug Lytle wrote:
> Russell Bryant wrote:
> > I proposed calling the release candidates 1.6.3-rc1, 1.6.3-rc2, etc.
> >
> > What is your opinion? I certainly want the release naming to be as
> > obvious as possible.
I would say the rc-1, rc-2 is about as obviou
Russell Bryant wrote:
> I proposed calling the release candidates 1.6.3-rc1, 1.6.3-rc2, etc.
>
> What is your opinion? I certainly want the release naming to be as obvious as
> possible.
>
>
Then I think that would be the rc1,rc2 style then.
Doug
--
Ben Franklin quote:
"Those who would
Russell Bryant wrote:
> I have been having discussions with various members of the development
> community
> in regards to changes to the way we manage open source Asterisk releases. The
> changes that we eventually decide on will determine how we manage the 1.6
> version of Asterisk. I will be
Russell Bryant wrote:
> I have been having discussions with various members of the development
> community
> in regards to changes to the way we manage open source Asterisk releases. The
> changes that we eventually decide on will determine how we manage the 1.6
> version of Asterisk. I will be
I second calling the release candidates 1.6.3-rc1, 1.6.3-rc2, etc.
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/ast
I have been having discussions with various members of the development community
in regards to changes to the way we manage open source Asterisk releases. The
changes that we eventually decide on will determine how we manage the 1.6
version of Asterisk. I will be posting much more detailed inform
18 matches
Mail list logo
