Personally, I think we should go with the conformant version numger.
It's a little misleading to kick up to 2.0 in a non-major release,
but, such
is the price of a version-number schema change.
In this case, I think there is more value to compliant version numbers
than the small amount of confusion that it will create.
Just my $0.02.
Owen
On Mar 28, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Curt, WE7U wrote:
I think we should put out a stable release as soon as possible.
This seems like a good time to do it as it has been some months
since the last, plus the codebase has been fairly stable, with
mostly bug-fixes going in for a while.
This is just a feeler to see if anyone has any major headaches with
it. If not, how about a release date sometime in the first couple
of weeks of April?
This would either be release 1.8.6 or we could start using the
recommended numbering scheme and go with 2.0:
<http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-Release-Practice-HOWTO/index.html>
The third digit is supposed to be patch levels for a release, as in
major.minor.patch numbering. If we adopted this strategy then we
could go with 2.1 for our next development version and 2.2 for the
following stable release.
Thoughts?
--
Curt, WE7U. APRS Client Comparisons: http://www.eskimo.com/~archer
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
_______________________________________________
Xastir-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir-dev
_______________________________________________
Xastir-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir-dev
