-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:56:05PM -0600, Eric Blake thus spake: >On 04/30/2012 12:43 PM, Jason Helfman wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. > >But for all intents and purposes, it IS an update to 0.9.11 - it is >0.9.11 plus backported patches that you would otherwise get in 0.9.12, >but where 0.9.12 adds features. > Ok, I see. I was under the impression that these release were going to follow a release cycle of RedHat, and therefore wouldn't be changing that much, or get too many updates. - -jgh - -- 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iF4EAREIAAYFAk+e4T0ACgkQXpKtZoyM+6XyDQD9EUfHoC3KLGZ5TNc1HmqdOEJC pG5TyCM7lkEG0WAwFvkA/jcpBeeXRH6NIV6yDFSyedObqppjm5jEV4oCwy7sIsF8 =ksh7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list