Re: Releasenumbers?

Stefan Neufeind wrote:

How about doing it "the linux-kernel way", meaning 1.2 is stable, 1.3 is development, 1.4 is stable again etc. On 3 Aug 2003 at 15:22, Tobias Schlitt wrote:

I'd like to release a beta version for a new major-release (changed api, new methods,...). What would be the best releasenumber for such releases (currently I've 1.1 as stable). I thought about doing like Debian does: Using the 2.x release-series for unstable releases. Would that be ok?

Any API breakage should always be a new version (as decided at the PEAR meeting), as such I would imagine any betas follow the same pattern.. so 2.0.0b1, then b2 etc, then RC1 and finally 2.0.0 itself (is that b1 and RC1 allowed by version_compare() PHP5 is using it atm so I imagine so) As the new version with API breaking *will* have to be a new major version why would you release its betas under the current version tree? - Davey