On Monday 08 April 2002 20:13, Paul Svensson wrote: ... > >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. I agree it's somewhat more obvious than odd/even, so, although I do not see what you mean about simplicity here, I'd be quite satisfied with it. Alex
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