3.9: Numbering?

[Andreas Raab]

Hi -

IIRC, then the idea was not to use the implicit 
upgrade-the-last-version-of-each-package scheme that we're currently 
using in Tweak. In which case all new configurations would have to be 
posted explicitly. In which case the X.Y-update number scheme still 
applies since it basically identifies the configuration map and 
therefore implicitly the versions of the packages being used.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Marcus Denker wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> With 3.9 we now can not use the update number as a sub-numbering  (e.g. 
> 3.9updateXYZ). So it might be interesting
> to come up with a different way of numbering at least some snap-shots  
> along the way to 3.9 final...
> 
> 1) For putting out pre-loaded images. I think this is a god thing to  
> have, as it makes testing easiert for people, thus
>     growing the number of testers
> 2) As tags for "stable" points, so people can say "it worked in 3.9.15".
> 
> The question is if we adopt the Linux Way of numbering: 3.8 is  stable, 
> 3.9 is unstable, both have minor revisions (3.8.1, 3.9.1),
> with 3.9 then be renamed 3.10 as soon as we decide to do a stabler  
> release.
> 
> What do you think? I would like to release a 3.9alpha image soon, so  
> that people can test the changes that we added over
> the last week. There was a huge bag-log of small fixes on mantis.
> 
>       Marcus
> 
>