Most people seem to agree with this, as well as I. Plus it appears to
roughly follow Helge's suggestions (although I admit I'm confused by
that still). Anyway, I've added this in slightly edited form to our
release policy:
http://wiki.gnustep.org/index.php/GNUstep_release_policy
On Oct 5,
: Versioning/release policy proposal
This is a proposal for conventions to be adopted for releasing
GNUstep packages ... the idea being that something like this could
be added to our FAQ and used as a reference for making releases and
to some extent guiding what changes we allow into trunk
Fedor [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gregory John Casamento
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Developer GNUstep gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Subject: Versioning/release policy proposal
This is a proposal for conventions to be adopted for releasing
GNUstep packages ... the idea being that something
On 6 Oct 2006, at 12:04, Dennis Leeuw wrote:
, the only thing I miss is a rationale for the use of the SONAME
with a major.minor structure, instead of the more common major. I
think this would help in the understanding why, and resulting in
less discussion.
I have no real idea of what's
I like this proposal very much, there is one area, where I see problems,
but we could wait until we actually face them. This is the question, who
will be willing to work on the bugfix releases?
Most developers will spend their time and efforts on the new unstable
release, then somebody needs to
On 6 Oct 2006, at 19:16, Fred Kiefer wrote:
I like this proposal very much, there is one area, where I see
problems,
but we could wait until we actually face them. This is the
question, who
will be willing to work on the bugfix releases?
Most developers will spend their time and efforts on
