Actually in thinking about it a bit further, I wouldn't mind seeing something like: squeak3.10-7119dev07.6.2Beta.image
or really, what good does Beta even serve? so: squeak3.10-7119dev07.6.2.image or even shorter for example if that's what is wanted: sq3.9-7067dev07.6.1.image sq3.10-7119dev07.6.2.image
Ken
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:41:25 +0200 From: "Damien Cassou" damien.cassou@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ANN][Squeak-dev Beta Image] Version 123 To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Message-ID: 6ac749c10706272241m29e12067h1c6f57721921005a@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
2007/6/28, Ken G. Brown kbrown@mac.com:
I'm a bit confused with all the different versions of everything. Might there be a more consistent methodology of versioning? On June 18th, you mentioned changing your versioning scheme. Might I ask which version of 123 is this? As far as I know there already was a dev version 123.
St©phane answered to an old mail that's why the title is 123. My two last images are named squeak-dev-07.6 and squeak-dev-beta-07.6. Beta images have always been based on 3.10 whereas non beta are based on 3.9.
Could the dev image include the 3.9 or 3.10 along with the update level in the versioning?
Isn't the "beta" in the name enough?
-- Damien Cassou
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org