Re: Version Naming

On 27 Feb 2004 at 13:47, Lukas Smith wrote: > Marcos Neves wrote: > > > Excelent!!! > > What about an expire date to every package be update. > > I think one month is enouth. > > I have heard other people also say that they would prefer to have > deadlines by which a given proposal must be applied to a given > package. I dont think however that this is really necessary. What do > other people think? Since there is not such a "important" need for a quick solution maybe let the guidelines speak for itself for the moment. It would be cool if somebody could set up a tool for selecting the "appropriate next version" for a package, or maybe even integrate that in the PackageFileManager. A "deadline" in my eyes is not necessary - and a deadline of one month could even be counter-productive. Every lead should try his best to follow the guidelines - and when new releases come up that don't yet follow the versioning scheme, maybe somebody from pear-qa would volunteer to inform the package lead via private email? Any volunteer? PS: Sure I'm open for suggestions ... Stefan