kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Jonas Diemer <diemer@...>]

That's exactly my point too. There needs to be a marker saying "this version 
is considered stable and can be used for production use". So how about adding 
a "traditional" version number to the release date whenever such a release is 
considered stable, i.e.

kicad-2.0rc1-2008-08-28
kicad-2.0-2008-09-01
kicad-2.1-2008-11-04

and so forth. I placed the version _in front of_ the date on purpose, so it 
cannot be confused with something like "the second release on that day".

What do you think?

Regards
Jonas

PS: Once we have this figured out, it should go in the FAQ.

Am Freitag, 29. August 2008 23:26:03 schrieb Alain M.:
> Hi Jean Pierre,
>
> I believe that what people want most is to easyly identify the stable
> version when it comes. FWIK this is what you are doing by calling the
> last version rc1 is just that.
>
> Alain
>
> jean-pierre charras escreveu:
> > Jonas Diemer a écrit :
> >> Hi JP,
> >>
> >> nice to see there will be a stable release soon. How about giving it
> >> a "stable" release number, such as 2.0 (in addition to the date)? We had
> >> discussions about this 5 months ago or so...
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Jonas
> >
> > I know many people prefers this kind of versioning.
> > I used it some years ago.
> > But for me it was not very usefull, and I changed it for the more
> > powerfull timestamp based identification.
> >
> > A versioning like year.month.day is very usefull for me in bug tracking
> > work (this is the reason I use this kind of versioning).
> > When a bug is reported (by mail or sourceforge) I know very easily if a
> > bug is already soved or not.
> >
> > Adding an arbitrary version number to a date version is of course
> > possible. But this is more awkward and is it really very easy for users?
> > Is the date not sufficient ?
> > A lot of applications (outside software world) also use time stamp
> > successfully to characterize what they manage.