Sorry, forgot to reply to the list...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] 0MQ stable release 2.1 (v2.1.2, rc2) released To: MinRK <[email protected]> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:15 PM, MinRK <[email protected]> wrote: > I do have a question about the use of version numbers and release > candidates. We decided to: (a) continue to increment the version numbers so we have a unique identifier for every release; (b) use the rc notiation to indicate "close to stability" So rc1, rc2 is not part of the version numbering, e.g. on pages like http://api.zeromq.org. It's descriptive. The 'real' version number is in include/zmq.h and the major/minor/patch format hasn't changed. When the 2.1 branch is formally stable, we'll continue to increment the version number sequentially if there are later stable releases. Thus, if we have patches to 2.0.x they'll be released as 2.0.11. Sorry that this doesn't follow tradition. There are other ways to get the same results but they become awkward, e.g. using even numbers for stable versions. > It might be preferable on the website to use just the qualified names: > release candidate: 2.1.2 > stable release: 2.0.10 There is value IMO in pushing people to use the RCs. I've modified the wording a little, see if it works better. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
