From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Schmidt Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:14:26 +0000 Subject: Re: [mlmmj] Mlmmj 1.2.18a1 released Message-Id: <4F5F3A22.3050206@yahoo.com.au> List-Id: References: <4F5E32B9.6090908@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <4F5E32B9.6090908@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: mlmmj@mlmmj.org On 13/03/12 6:16 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 03/13/2012 01:30 AM, Ben Schmidt wrote: >> An alpha release for the upcoming Mlmmj 1.2.18 has been published. > > Hi! > > Why suddenly changing versioning scheme? I didn't realise I changed anything. > Does the "a" means alpha? Yes, A is for alpha. Followed by B for beta, and RC for release candidate. That's the system in my head, anyway. > Later, if you publish 1.2.18.0, it's going to be considered smaller > than 1.2.18a1, so I think it's not a nice numbering scheme Well, that depends how you sort, doesn't it? What I've used is a fairly common numbering system that a lot of packages use, so it wouldn't surprise me if many sorting algorithms for version numbers dealt with it OK. A simple ASCII sort won't though, it's true. > (it might break upgrading in Debian, for example). I'm not sure that an alpha release should be included in a distribution anyway, to be honest. > Something like: > > 1.2.18.0.rc1 > > would have been better. Then, you would release 1.2.18.1 ... I guess I probably should have had a hyphen in there, that's all. 1.2.18-a1 would be better, right? I'll do that for beta and beyond. Cheers, Ben.