Release Team BoF Summary

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 07:44:38 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Divendres, 13 de juliol de 2012, a les 14:31:35, Aurélien Gâteau va
> 
> escriure:
> > Le jeudi 12 juillet 2012 20:43:12 Albert Astals Cid a écrit :
> > > So here comes the summary of the Release Team BoF, the attached picture
> > > is
> > > all we wrote during the BoF itself so all written here is me trying to
> > > remember what we said, if any of the presents disagrees or remembers
> > > more,
> > > please do not hesitate to comment.
> > 
> > Something which we discussed in the KDE Quality BoF and is of interest to
> > the KDE Release Team is the numbering of unstable versions.
> > 
> > Up to now we have been using 4.N.8* and 4.N.9* for alpha, beta and rc. The
> > problem with those is it is difficult when you get a report on 4.8.85 to
> > know if the user is running beta1, beta2, rc1 or something else.
> > 
> > To address this we proposed the following numbering scheme:
> > 
> > 4.N.7{1,2,3} => N+1 alpha 1, 2, 3
> > 4.N.8{1,2,3} => N+1 beta 1, 2, 3
> > 4.N.9{1,2,3} => N+1 rc 1, 2, 3
> > 
> > With this scheme, 4.10 alpha 1 would be 4.9.71, 4.10 beta 2 would be
> > 4.9.82
> 
> This helps with remembering but breaks our "traditions", to be honest i
> don't care, any other opinion?

I don't see the benefit, but I don't (as  Kubuntu packager) see any harm.  As 
long as it's communicated in advance so users know, I don't think it matters 
(this gives me a slight bias towards the status quo).  Those version numbers 
don't mean anything special for us from a packaging point of view.

Scott K