Subject: Re: [ecasound] we need bigger releases!
From: Junichi Uekawa (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 07 2001 - 05:51:25 EET
In Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:50:38 -0500 (EST) Jeremy cum veritate scripsit :
This is an interesting question, and I would like to feed in some opinion.
Since people are prone to make mistakes (even when making a stable release),
1.9.1 should also be reserved for "stable release" too. (like
"oops, I forgot to bump up the version number in file foo")
Then, for development versions, we could have something like,
1.9.1.dev.(development-number) (well, it doesn't really matter
how it looks like)
Having "d" and "r" seems rather confusing to new ecasoud users
to say the least.
I am in favor of very long version numbers, but that's probably because
Debian versions of ecasound already has them that way. For example,
if I had to include an update to the woody release of Debian with an
ecasound after woody has been released,
it would be called something like.
-- Netfort: email@example.com Debian: firstname.lastname@example.org dancer, a.k.a. Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer Dept. of Knowledge Engineering and Computer Science, Doshisha University. -- To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message to <email@example.com>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Feb 07 2001 - 17:23:23 EET