We release on a biyearly calendar. We should use a scheme like https://calver.org/ and not do arbitrary version number bumps based on rationales no-one really understands outside the Marketing tribe at TDF (because they’re secretive like that).
Re: Consider changing version numbering scheme
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Consider changing version numbering scheme
- From: Adolfo Jayme Barrientos <fitoschido@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:46:41 -0600
- Cc: libreoffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <PAXP193MB12307C274E7C85AFABBCDD83D6CB9@PAXP193MB1230.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
- References: <PAXP193MB12307C274E7C85AFABBCDD83D6CB9@PAXP193MB1230.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Consider changing version numbering scheme
- From: Italo Vignoli
- Re: Consider changing version numbering scheme
- References:
- Consider changing version numbering scheme
- From: Mike Kaganski
- Consider changing version numbering scheme
- Prev by Date: Re: Question re the uno-skeletonmaker'-t' CLI qualifier
- Next by Date: Re: Consider changing version numbering scheme
- Previous by thread: Re: Consider changing version numbering scheme
- Next by thread: Re: Consider changing version numbering scheme
- Index(es):
 |