On Mon, Apr 08, 2002, Paul Hughett wrote: > > Given that we distinguish stable and experimental versions (which I > regard as an obvious +1), we have the problem of labelling them and I > think the Linux system is well suited (but I'm still willing to listen > to alternatives): It's well-established and known to a large part of > our target audience. It's pretty easy to determine from the version > number alone whether it's stable (minor version even) or experimental > odd); I wouldn't want to try to remember that--say--versions 2.2.1 > through 2.2.19 are experimental while 2.2.20 and up are stable. Just brainstorming: How about 2.3.a, 2.3.b, 2.3.c, ... as the experimental releases; 2.3.0 would then be the first stable release. Note that I agree that overall the problem lies more in getting people to try the experimental releases. See my "Developer Resources" post for more. -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "There are times when effort is important and necessary, but this should not be taken as any kind of moral imperative." --jdecker
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