Re: Versioning scheme ?

lovechild pointed out that i didn't explicitly state the odd/even
unstable/stable  naming convention.. Tho i state kernel convention.
Following the odd minor number as a devel release and the even minor as
the stable release is always a good thing :P


On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 01:15, Jesse Nelson wrote:
>  Im working on the zyCD and a bit on march stager.. as well this leads
> to me needing to muck with the x86 profile so i can build a stage and
> eventually a Zynot based liveCD ( zyCD :D ) ..  
> 
> basically my question for discussion is are we gonna stick to the gentoo
> nameing convention for release versions?  It seems kinda ad-hoc on the
> gentoo side:
> 
>    stage1-arch-1.4_rc4  <-- stage tarball 
>    default-x86-1.4 <-- profile
>    portage-2.0.48-r5 <-- package manager 
> 
> Basically i think we should simplify on 1 versioning scheme and try to
> perpetuate that throught: 
>  
>    stage1-arch-0.1.1  <-- stage
>    server-x86-0.1.1   <-- profile
>    porteus-0.1.1  <-- package manager 
> 
> 
> I used the double dot notation  manly because its the linux kernel
> scheme and most ppl in OSS understand how that works .. Im not really a
> fan of the _rc nomenclature myself altho i realize in ebuilds the -rX is
> for parsability, and i think in ebuilds we have little choice in how the
> package is named.. My goal was mainly with Zynot related components in
> this "proposal" ?? 
> 
> thoughts ? 
> 
> 
> --
> In Oz, never say "krizzle kroo" to a Woozy.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> zynot-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.zynot.org/mailman/listinfo/zynot-dev
"Any medium powerful enough to extend man's reach is powerful enough to
topple his world. To get the medium's magic to work for one's aims
rather than against them is to attain literacy." -- Alan Kay, "Computer
Software", Scientific American, September 1984