Re: Simpler version naming

> So for 1.4.0 alpha 1, I should release it as 1.4.0RC1 state alpha? That > doesn't make sense to me. Hopefully I am misunderstanding what you mean? There is no such thing as 1.4.0 alpha 1 1.3.0 (stable) 1.3.1 (stable) .. 1.4.0 (alpha) 1.4.1 (alpha) 1.4.2 (beta) 1.4.3 (stable) ... 1.5.0RC1 (beta) 1.5.0RC2 (beta) 1.5.0RC3 (beta) 1.5.0 (stable) <- note this is really messy for version testing now. actually this would be alot better as: 1.5.1RC (beta) 1.5.2RC (beta) 1.5.3RC (beta) 1.5.4 (stable) we dont have a RC 'state', It's just used as a version suffix, personally I think anyone who expects a serious amount of users to test their package while in RC state (above and beyond beta testers) is dreamming, but it's there for those dreamers :) > it either introduces magic or forces the user to remember the package > state in order to download the file. It's the magic I want.. - computers are here to serve us lazy people not the otherway round :) Having looked at the proposal, is it trying to clear up the BC rules eg. when to bump xxx to xxx2 to xxx3 etc. and clarify if xxx2-4.0.0 is a valid name? which probably needs a little more explaination (in terms of an RFC explaining the pros/cons on if they should match up..) Regards Alan > > Greg -- Alan Knowles <alan@akbkhome.com>