Raphaël Enrici wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
I was intending to follow the pga2 convention:
0.9.0 beta 1
0.9.1 beta 1 dev 1
0.9.2 beta 1 dev 2
0.9.14 beta 2
I don't think we need to number each between-betas version. We have
Betas, which will get their own number, and to distinct non-beta
(int
Dave Page wrote:
I was intending to follow the pga2 convention:
0.9.0 beta 1
0.9.1 beta 1 dev 1
0.9.2 beta 1 dev 2
0.9.14 beta 2
and so on. We then release 1.0.0.
1.0.1 is refresh 1 of 1.0
1.1.x is the new development branch that will become 1.2.x at release, thus odd minor versions are devel
> -Original Message-
> From: Raphaël Enrici [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 04 August 2003 21:14
> To: Andreas Pflug
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dave Page
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Problem with debian package
> version number
>
>
> Andreas Pflu
Andreas Pflug wrote:
Raphaël Enrici wrote:
I did a big mistake when I began to number debian packages...
What are you planning to do concerning the pgAdmin3 version number
for the beta release ?
Will this stay 0.8.0 ? Or will this become something else greater
than 0.8.0 (would be nice...) ? Do
Raphaël Enrici wrote:
Dear all,
I did a big mistake when I began to number debian packages...
I versioned them like this :
pgadmin3-x.y.z-MMDD.w
where x.y.z is the pgadmin3 version number, MMDD is the snapshot
tag and w is a minor release number for the package.
As this is unofficial pac
Dear all,
I did a big mistake when I began to number debian packages...
I versioned them like this :
pgadmin3-x.y.z-MMDD.w
where x.y.z is the pgadmin3 version number, MMDD is the snapshot tag
and w is a minor release number for the package.
As this is unofficial packages, I should have nu
