On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 01:38:27PM -0500, Doug Goldstein thus spake:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Jason Helfman <jhelfman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Okay, I screwed up the tarball for the first stable release, due to not
building it from a fresh checkout :/ No changes for this one except a
version
bump and dist rebuild.
This release can be downloaded at:
http://libvirt.org/sources/libvirt-0.9.11.2.tar.gz
Thanks,
Cole
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Is there any particular reason that the project is using the same naming
convention for stable releases? It appears to be a minor revision update
from the standard release cycle. From an outsiders prospective, I don't
know how anyone would think that 0.9.11.2 is not a standard update from
0.9.11, as there is no distinction in either the name from the distributed
file, or documentation (unless I missed it denoted specifically on
libvirt.org).
Would there be any objection to using a distribution file name
libvirt-stable-0.9.11.2.tar.gz ?
To me, it is confusing, but that is just my opinion.
Thanks,
Jason
Don't change the tarball name like that. That would just plain suck
and be different than how 99% of projects out there do things.
Ok, but having the same download path is just as confusing, as it looks like
an update to 0.9.11, when it is a different release.
Thanks,
Jason
--
Jason Helfman
System Administrator
experts-exchange.com
http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_4830110.html
E4AD 7CF1 1396 27F6 79DD 4342 5E92 AD66 8C8C FBA5
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list