Re: Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::VersionNaming
| From: | Stefan Neufeind | Date: | Sat, 08 May 2004 16:35:14 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [PEPr] Comment on RFC::VersionNaming | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-29026@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 7 May 2004 at 9:43, Justin Patrin wrote:
> Pepr wrote:
>
> > Daniel Convissor (http://pear.php.net/user/danielc) has commented on the proposal for
> > RFC::VersionNaming.
> >
> > Comment:
> >
> > The Stable Releases section says one should not have a "stable" state for
> > releases pre 1.0.0. What about using "stable" for RC's of post 1.0.0 releases (e.g.
> > 1.3.0RC3)? I don't have strong opinions on this.
> >
> > Proposal information:
> > http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=65
> >
>
> IMHO an RC is not stable, even if it is an RC for something greater than
> 1.0.0. An RC implies that something needs to be tested before it is stable.
Agreed. That's why RCs currently should be beta - and imho this is
fine. It includes that it's "quite stable" but needs further testing
before a stable release. So beta fits best.
Stefan