On Monday, October 11, 2004 at 22:19:27, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> I suggest the following: > >> 1.0.1, 1.0.2,... : bug fixes in the stable branch > >> 1.1 : a new development branch > >> 1.2 : the next release > >> and so on. > > > > Like the kernel-numbering ;-)
major.minor.patchlevel > I also like it. > > > IMHO this also imposes we have devo-tarballs. > > They're less necessary for a revision control system, because we can > safely assume that the user know how to make a checkout ;-) But this > is already available on gna.org. Sure, but then why should we have the odd numbers? ;-) Also I would suggest that the versions used in the archives correspond to the major.minor. And when having one archive corresponding to the release/devo version the patchlevel should correspond to the patch of the archive. I know there is no need to do it like this, but I think it is convenient and less confusing. Robert
