Subject: Re: Topic: Versioning scheme and 1.0
From: David Chart (linux@dchart.demon.co.uk)
Date: Thu May 03 2001 - 14:04:30 CDT
--On 3/5/01 14:02 +0200 Joaquin Cuenca Abela wrote:
> I fully agree. I really prefer the x.y.z system. This way I (and the
> users) can understand easily if a version is unstable/stable.
Just a quick comment from the user side. I think you are *vastly*
overestimating how many users will realise that 1.0.4 means 'stable with
loadsa bug fixes' while 1.1.23 means 'falls over every twenty minutes
because the table code doesn't work right'.
To the best of my knowledge, the Linux kernels and GNOME projects use the
even second=stable convention. KDE doesn't, I believe. Mac and Windows OS
don't. MS Word doesn't. Mulberry (the email client I use) doesn't. I like
the kernel numbering system. I think it makes a huge amount of sense for an
Open Source project (and I think you should stick with it for AW). But its
meaning is *far* from obvious to most users.
David Chart
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat May 26 2001 - 03:51:01 CDT