The Old Way Was Better

[Peter McGarvey]

* Paul Robinson <paul at iconoplex.co.uk> [2003-09-08 11:32:35 BST]:
> Keeping the betas named as betas would be fine. 5.0-BETA-1 should have 
> been the name for 5.0-RELEASE. Then 5.0-BETA-2 for 5.1-RELEASE, 
> 5.0-BETA-3 for 5.2-RELEASE, then 5.0-BETA-4, 5.0-BETA-5, etc. then when 
> the code is READY for a production environment and everybody agrees it 
> rocks, we finally get to 5.0-RELEASE

You got my vote.

I like my version numbering to mean something in itself.  If you need to
know "how things are done" to interpret "5.1-RELEASE" really means
"5.1-RELEASE-BUT-NOT-RATED-FOR-PRODUCTION-USE-SO-BEWARE" then the
versioning is not doing it's job.

Or we could start using odd and even numbers to identify different
release types....  Oh wait, no, that's stupid....  :-)


-- 
TTFN, FNORD

Peter McGarvey
Freelance FreeBSD Hacker
(will work for bandwidth)