Re: [RFC] 3.1 branching

On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 17:28 +0200, Kinkie wrote:

> I don't like much not having a fixed "stable" marker much tho, what I'd do is:
> - when major bugs are fixed, a .0 release point is taken. After that
> during the stabilization phase, milestones are marked with an
> additional numeral (e.g. 3.2.0.5)
> - when STABLE level is reached, then a .1 release is taken (3.2.1).
> After that, it's maintainance mode and new releases are marked by
> incrementing the third numeral (e.g. 3.2.5).
>
> Advantages:
> - it's fully-numeral
> - it has a fixed "stable" marker (the .1 release).
> - it doesn't change much the current numbering approach

I like your proposal a lot more than the current scheme, but what is the
value of a "fixed stable marker"? What a fixed marker like that would
allow us to do that we cannot do by saying "stable" or "first stable"?

The only use I can think of is that it would allow us to detect a stable
release in a version number that was assigned 5 years ago (e.g., we will
know that 3.1.3 was a stable release even 5 years from now). Since that
old branch will no longer be supported by then, we should not need that
information often. What other uses are there?

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Wed Sep 24 2008 - 16:55:26 MDT