[m-rev.] review: document new release naming scheme and announce 10.04 beta release

[Peter Wang]

On 2010-02-04, Paul Bone <pbone at csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 12:34:36PM +1100, Peter Ross wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I've made available the 10.04-beta release at petdr at neptune:~/10.04-beta
> > It includes the index.html file.
> > 
> 
> Just some initial feedback.
> 
> We had a discussion in the office about not bothering with the extra 0 in
> versions such as 10.04, making them 10.4 instead.  I don't remember there being
> any serious objections.  I think someone, playing devil's advocate, said that with
> the 0 the versions would line up when printed in a fixed-width font.

With the proposed versioning system and release schedule there is a high
likelihood that in any year there will be a release with a single digit
month and another with a two-digit month.  The initial 0 means that
lexicographical ordering will sort the releases correctly.

Of course, we could just not make releases after September.

> How do we know that we'll have a stable version in April?  I've also heard
> people refer to March.  I'd prefer not to name a month or date until we know
> that we're ready.  Then we can't be accused of being late.

A good reason not to use date-based version numbers.

Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-reviews at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-reviews at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-reviews-request at csse.unimelb.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------