Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:57:51 -0500, > Mail Lists <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Maybe follow the kernel naming scheme .. >> >> 12 is the released version >> 12.x is what will become 13 .. >> 13.rc is now a release candidate (no longer development) >> 13 is released > > Anything related to the next release should have the release number of > the next release in it's name, not the current release. The 10.91 stuff > of the past was a pain, because you couldn't use that name to find the > corresponding parts of mirrors and the number changed for no good reason > along the way. Just calling it 13 and using the prerelease naming convention > for the rpm release info works much nicer. The obvious way to call something which is not 13, but is something a little less than 13 is 12.9, but I agree with you that it would be better to have 13 in the name instead of 12, so, logically: 12.0, 12.1, 12.2, 13.-2, 13.-1, 13.0, 13.1, ... negative numbers as secondary version. It may appear crazy, but it is indeed reasonable. (and while not trivial to sort, it's better than "13pre"<"13rc"<"13"). You could for example start alpha at -999, beta at -499, rc at -99 and have something like: 12.0, 12.1, 12.2, 13.-999, 13.-998, 13.-499, 13.-498, 13.-497, 13.-99, 13.0 It also provides an exciting "count-down to launch" concept :-) -- Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
