Release naming

[Greg Meyer]

On Wednesday 03 September 2008, Ian Monroe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Lydia Pintscher <lydia at kde.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 08:07, Mark Kretschmann <kretschmann at kde.org> 
wrote:
> >> I agree with all this.
> >>
> >> While we're at it, I would also like to insist going back to our old
> >> alpha/beta naming scheme, which was just that: "alpha1", "beta1", etc.
> >>
> >> With the new system a release is both named "beta1", and "1.90". This
> >> is confusing to everyone (including us), and doesn't even make sense
> >> logically. 2.x is _not_ 1.x, whatever way you look at it.
> >
> > No!
> > There are reasons behind this version scheme.
> > Some of them being:
> > - package management (Who of you packaged software so far?)
> > - the rest of KDE does it this way as well
> > - 2.0 beta 1 < 2.0!
> > For more please talk to Harald. I did not choose this out of the blue.
>
> I don't see why everyone has to be confused because dpkg is a bit
> slow. emerge doesn't have trouble figuring out that 2.0-beta1 < 2.0
> iirc.
>
It is an issue for packaging but it's really not that hard to work around, but 
I can see why it would make sense to be consistent with KDE, and I can also 
see that from a packager's perspective it'd be good to have the tarball's 
versioned in a way that I don't have to keep editing my 
specfile/ebuild/pkgbuild/whateverDebiancallsthem in a hackish way.

Really, the beta1, beta2, rc1, etc should be emphasized when discussing, but 
to name the tarball 1.9x for easier packaging should really be noticed by no 
one except the packagers.

-- 
Greg