On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Alex Martelli wrote: >On Monday 08 April 2002 07:38 pm, Guido van Rossum wrote: > ... >> > It seems to me that duplicating (in your example) 2.3.8 to 2.4.0 >> > (and using 2.5.0 as the new baseline for further experimentation) >> > would be a very clear signal in this sense. >> >> *If* the community likes the even/odd distinction enough. I've heard >> mixed feelings. > >I'm neutral on the odd/even distinction -- all it has for it is that a >number of people are used to it from Linux. But SOMEthing more >remarkable that "up to 2.3.N experimental, 2.3.(N+1) and on >stable" is needed -- a different name, a different major release, >whatever. If we can come up with something better than parity >of minor release number, I'll personally cheer... I just can't think >of anything better right now. Comparison of microrelease with >some arbitrary threshold changing by minor.major is worse, though -- >not a clear signal at all. Why not take advantage of the "well known fact" that any software release ending in ".0" is not to be trusted ? Make X.Y.0.N the experimental branch, settling down to X.Y.1 as the final stable release, following up with X.Y.Z as bugfix-only releases, and the next round of experimentals continuing from X.(Y+1).0.0. This is almost as simple as the "just call it stable when it is" proposal, while still being even more obvious than the odd/even approach. /Paul
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4