You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de> on 2005/11/25 11:53:41 UTC
Version numbers (was Re: svn commit: r348747 - /xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/build.xml)
Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
> Not necessarily. We've called it 0.90alpha1. I'd assume we'd have a
> 0.90beta or directly a 0.90 (final) first. But I guess that's open for
I thought we do it like 0.91alpha2, ... 0.93 beta ... 1.0
> discussion. I don't care too much about it.
What do others think?
Christian
Re: Version numbers
Posted by Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.nl>.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:53:41AM +0100, Christian Geisert wrote:
> > Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
> > > Not necessarily. We've called it 0.90alpha1. I'd assume we'd have a
> > > 0.90beta or directly a 0.90 (final) first. But I guess that's open for
> >
> > I thought we do it like 0.91alpha2, ... 0.93 beta ... 1.0
> >
> > > discussion. I don't care too much about it.
> >
> > What do others think?
I see now better what Christian means: number the releases 0.91, 0.92
etc. and append an indicator of our judgment of quality. That would
make 0.91alpha, 0.92beta etc., and it makes sense to me.
Simon
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
Re: Version numbers
Posted by Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.nl>.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:53:41AM +0100, Christian Geisert wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
> > Not necessarily. We've called it 0.90alpha1. I'd assume we'd have a
> > 0.90beta or directly a 0.90 (final) first. But I guess that's open for
>
> I thought we do it like 0.91alpha2, ... 0.93 beta ... 1.0
>
> > discussion. I don't care too much about it.
>
> What do others think?
Upping two different numbers at the same time is not logical. I go
with Jeremias' idea, but I do not care too much either.
Simon
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl