Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:18:31 +0100 From: Peter McGarvey <fbsd-x@packet.org.uk> To: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Old Way Was Better Message-ID: <20030908111831.GA79830@packet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <3F5C5A71.6020204@iconoplex.co.uk> References: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0309071042420.76263-100000@s1.stradamotorsports.com> <cjwucjj35m.ucj@mail.comcast.net> <3F5C5A71.6020204@iconoplex.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> [2003-09-08 11:32:35 BST]: > Keeping the betas named as betas would be fine. 5.0-BETA-1 should have > been the name for 5.0-RELEASE. Then 5.0-BETA-2 for 5.1-RELEASE, > 5.0-BETA-3 for 5.2-RELEASE, then 5.0-BETA-4, 5.0-BETA-5, etc. then when > the code is READY for a production environment and everybody agrees it > rocks, we finally get to 5.0-RELEASE You got my vote. I like my version numbering to mean something in itself. If you need to know "how things are done" to interpret "5.1-RELEASE" really means "5.1-RELEASE-BUT-NOT-RATED-FOR-PRODUCTION-USE-SO-BEWARE" then the versioning is not doing it's job. Or we could start using odd and even numbers to identify different release types.... Oh wait, no, that's stupid.... :-) -- TTFN, FNORD Peter McGarvey Freelance FreeBSD Hacker (will work for bandwidth)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030908111831.GA79830>