On 2012-12-16, at 22:16, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://ftp.squeak.org/4.4/Squeak4.4-12303.zip
> 
> I suggest we use a consistent naming convention that conveys the
> general ("4.4") and specific ("-12303") version information.  After a
> week has gone by for the community to download and verify it, there is
> no need to deploy yet another (renamed) image, so the "candidate" is
> truly a candidate for release -- the one that was tested.  Then all we
> have to do is [ANN]ounce.
> 
> That it is in the "4.4" release directory rather than the "4.4alpha"
> directory, anyone will know this is THE candidate for release.

Nobody can know this from the URL. It looks like an actual release, because *nothing* indicates that this is not a stable version. 

>  In the
> past we have tagged alpha images as, e.g., "Squeak4.2alpha-10160.zip"
> -- which could still do for alpha images if we want to be sure the
> names themselves carry a "quality disclaimer" tag.

I'd prefer this, yes.  Although we're way past alpha. This is a release candidate, after all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle

- Bert -