"Sarunas Vancevicius" <svan@redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote in message
news:20050326093254.GA18675@carbon.redbrick.dcu.ie...
> On 10:05, Sat 26 Mar 05, Bill Hacker wrote:
> > STABLE releases = DFSMMMYY
> > CURRENT releases = DFCMMMDDYY
> > EXPERIMENTAL or testing versions = DFXMMMDDYY.nn
>
> > Bill
>
> I think most people not familiar with this naming convention will
> get confused.
>
> E.G: a person who just read about DragonFly and wants to try it out.
> Goes to one of the mirrors, and is not sure which iso to download,
> and downloads the wrong one, say EXPERIMENTAL.
>
> Boots it and horrible things start to happen (say, gets a panic
> while booting). Now, this person, might stay away from DragonFly,
> and spread his unpleasant experience along the community he came
> from.
>
> So IMO its better to keep the naming as simple as possible.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Sarunas
I totally agree, however I also think that using dates is better than using
numbers, especially for stable since it's much easier to see old your
codebase is. However using just dates makes it hard to create a release if
one does not also add an indicator of this. My proposal would be:
CURRENT-MMDDYYYY
STABLE-MMDDYYYY
RELEASE-MMDDYYYY
Why not use the whole date, doesn't take up that much space? However if one
were to start maintaining two different branches things will be more
difficult.
--
Erik Wikstr闣