On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:26:00 +0100
Maybe we if miss the right month (like we did now) we should just say> I think it would be wise to stay with the version numbering that we
> have right now, for example 2009.02 for the release coming this
> month. If any bug is found in the 2009.02-1 release, there can come a
> 2009.02-2 release, and so forth. The development versions for the
> 2009.02 series would be called 2009.02-alpha1, 2009.02-beta and
> 2009.02-rc, etcetera. The final version would be 2009.02-1.
>
> This way we would never run out of version numbers, one can see in
> the blink of an eye when a release was made, and this way of version
> numbering is very consistent and logical. The only downside that I
> can find about this way of versioning is what Dieter Plaetinck said
> on 2 februari, that it could interfere with flyspray references, that
> need to be updated in case a release can't be made in a certain month.
>
> --
> Jeroen Maris
"fuck it" and release it as 2009-01 anyway. Less confusion, no problems
like beta's being released in january and finals in februari, no need
to change references after date, etc.
Will people really care that much that in february we do a release
called 2009-01 ?
It would make everything a bit easier, so let's keep it simple!
That said, I like Dan's 'winter/summer' proposal. Technically there's
the same problem because seasons switch on specific dates, but no-one
will be too pedantic about that. (just like we shouldn't be with date
based releases)
I think Abhishek explained it well (depend on nothing), but I think it's
good to have some idea at which point in time/ along with which kernel
version a release was done. We just shouldn't be 100% strict about it.
About the question which name we will pick, I'll find some online
polling thing tonight if I have time and put the proposals on it. then
we can vote. if we can't reach a consensus maybe we can just.. take
the one I or Gerhard prefer :))
I don't even know how we will technically add the names to the
release.. Aaron?
Dieter