From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:11:51 -0600 From: Chewie Subject: [linux-lvm] 0.9 next week?! Cool! Message-ID: <20001111121151.B7541@wookimus.net> References: <20001111131348.F32147@srv.t-online.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="St7VIuEGZ6dlpu13" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20001111131348.F32147@srv.t-online.de>; from Heinz.Mauelshagen@t-online.de on Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:13:48PM +0000 Sender: owner-linux-lvm Errors-To: owner-linux-lvm List-Id: To: linux-lvm@msede.com --St7VIuEGZ6dlpu13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:13:48PM +0000, Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote: > > How long will it take before 0.9 arrives? > I am planing for next monday :-) Woohoo! Thankyou, Heinz, for your hard work! =20 I have a request for you. *PLEASE* don't use odd version names like 0.9final, or Linus' faux paux with the "-test10-pre8" horror. ;-) Have you considered using a kernel-like versioning rule, where the minor (second) number is odd for development branch and even for the stable branch. Yes, 0.7.131 may seem quite boring, but when 0.8 rolls around, we'll know it's the first of the stable versions. Any 0.8.x versions would obviously be patch fixes to the stable version. =20 Regardless, have you been holding out with 0.9 for so long because you'd like it to be "stable" from its release point? With that in mind, would you consider releasing 0.9 as 0.10? Again, thanks! --=20 Chad "^chewie, gunnarr" Walstrom http://www.wookimus.net/ --St7VIuEGZ6dlpu13 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6DYvnDMcLGCBsWv0RArrdAJ0X7UaJJ/RLhyA/XyYlRCbfH2OGvACcDpNU 32wo+LJir5q6BgK6ZAUl+gA= =PAdS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --St7VIuEGZ6dlpu13--