On Tuesday 07 April 2009, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:52:46AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > I think that's going to lead to even more confusion. While I'm inclined > > to not greatly mind 0.10.99 for the development tree, when we do release > > candidates for the next release, it's going to be 0.11.0-rc1. I don't > > expect RPMs to ever be created from non-release versions of QEMU provided > > we stick to our plan of frequent releases. > > FWIW, GDB uses 6.8.50 (devel branch), 6.8.90 (release branch), 6.8.91 > (rc1). That's worked out well for us. I like this one. I'm extremely sceptical of anything that claims to need a fine grained version number. In practice version numbers for open source projects are fairly arbitrary and meaningless because almost everyone has their own set of patches and backported fixes anyway. Paul -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list