Release Team BoF Summary

[Michael Jansen]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 02:31:35 PM Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> 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

Why not marking an alpha, beta and rc as what it is and every other project 
out there already does? Why masking is as a stable release?

4.N.1~alpha1
4.N.1~alpha2
4.N.1~beta1
4.N.1~beta2
4.N.1~rc
4.N.1

Which btw. was discussed on this very list. So i would like to know what the 
rationale behind this scheme is. Why keep doing it?

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20120714/72970d76/attachment.html>