On Tuesday 28 January 2014 12:06:27 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > On Tuesday 28 January 2014 11:50:34 Martin Klapetek wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Martin Gräßlin <mgraess...@kde.org> wrote: > > > What we should consider when using such a numbering scheme is that it > > > also > > > works with beta releases of Plasma Next. If we kind of stick to what we > > > use > > > today it could be. > > > 2014.06-90 for the beta release of Plasma Next with the last stable > > > release > > > having been in June 2014. > > > > How about simply adding "beta1"? Eg. "2014.06-beta1" or "2014.06.rc1" > > > > Plain and simple. > > Is it? It makes everything more difficult as it's alpha-numeric instead of > just numeric and with such a scheme I would assume that it is the beta for > June 2014 release. Thus the release 2014.06 would have a smaller version > number than the beta release. > > 2014.06 < 2014.06-rc3 > 2014.06-0 < 2014.06-rc3 > 2014.06-final < 2014.06-rc3 > > etc. > > And as already discussed using the date of the final release in pre-releases > is dangerous.
Whatever you guys decide to use. It would be nice if it would be compatible to http://semver.org/ This is the only attempt to standardize versions i know of. And remember. I said NICE. Mike -- Michael Jansen http://michael-jansen.biz _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
