harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Blewitt" <alex.blew...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] proposal : starting a release train
Date Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:52:17 GMT
On 08/03/07, robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 8, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> >
> > > We ought to have a version monkier as well as M1, to ensure we don't
> > > get confused in the future.
>
> less confusing (in the long run) and more future proof not to use
> version monikers
>
> the traditional 0.x is a good approach for most open source projects
> (when pushing towards a 1.0) but IMHO harmony needs milestones and so
> adopting a 0.x version numbering system wouldn't work very well.

I completely disagree with your views.

> > Please not 1.0M1.  Please please please.
>
> +1
>
> there are lots of reasons not to use versions numbers for this kind of release
>
> here's one example: 1.0M1 confuses automatic dependency management systems

Please. Give me one system that can't handle a major/minor/qualifier
version number.

Alex.

Mime
View raw message