On 19 February 2010 21:07, Juan Vuletich <juan at jvuletich.org> wrote:
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 19 February 2010 20:19, Ken G. Brown <kbrown at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Whatever you call the trunk release, in my opinion it should not be
>>> called 3.11. There is too much out there already talking about 3.11 and it's
>>> history, and if you call the proposed trunk release 3.11, there will
>>> continue to be confusion generated far into the future.
>>>
>>> eg:
>>> <http://installer.pbworks.com/311>
>>>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311>
>>>  This is the Proposal to the board which was to my knowledge accepted.
>>>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal>
>>>
>>> In my view, the better way forward would be restore the ftp directory
>>> structure to what it was: 3.11 and its previous contents still called 3.11
>>> and not pointing to trunk, add a readme in the 3.11 directory saying 3.11
>>> was never a proper official release and be done with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What version number you suggesting then for trunk release?
>> And since original 3.11 effort is abandoned, and there no any official
>> releases, what images can be called 3.11 then?
>>
>>
>
> There's no need to have an official and final 3.11, in the same way there
> was never an official 3.3. It is pretty clear to me that trunk is not 3.11!
> I guess 3.12 is a reasonable number. But it would be even better if it could
> be called 4.0, if the relicense process is done by then.
>

Yes. I think this will be the best choice. For historians it would be
less confusing what call '3.11' effort then.
So, i suggesting
a) trunk release will be either 3.12 , or 4.1 (depending on b))
b) 4.0 is 3.10 , released under MIT license.

> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.