Subject: Re: Version Naming/Numbering
To: None <>
From: Matthias Scheler <>
List: current-users
Date: 09/22/2004 21:14:42
In article <>, (Christos Zoulas) writes:
>| >That's what I thought too, and 2.99 was luke's proposal IIRC. Can't we just
>| >agree on that and move forward?


>| Does that mean 2.99A, 2.99B, 2.99C, .... 3.0?
>| Or 2.99.1, 2.99.2, ... 3.0?
>| Or 2.99, 2.991, 2.992, ... 3.0?
> The first has the advantage that it makes it clear that this is not a release
> because the scheme is different, and the second has the advantage that it is
> not different from the release scheme :-)

The second scheme will work fine with the existing version number handling
in "xsrc", the second one won't. That's not difficult fix but will require
considerations for backwards compatibility e.g. how to get the same
version number for 1.6Y (1.6.25) that we've used before.
> I think I prefer the second.

Me too.

	Kind regards

Matthias Scheler