kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Eeli Kaikkonen <eeli.kaikkonen@xxxxxxxxx>]

ma 8. heinäk. 2019 klo 21.23 Wayne Stambaugh (stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx)
kirjoitti:

> Honestly, I don't have a strong preference
> one way or another.  If someone can come up with a system that's
> workable for everyone, that's fine by me.  I don't have an issue with
> using something like 5.99.0.
>

In the user forum we had to explain 6.0 scheme and now we have had to
explain this 5.1 scheme, although I like the current one better - at least
it doesn't make people think v6 exists which was certainly worse than the
confusion about 5.1.0-dev vs. 5.1.2-dev. The more I think about this the
more convinced I am that a dedicated number for development version would
be the best and least ambiguous solution. It could be 5.1/stable ->
5.2/development -> 6.0/next stable -> 7/next development or 5.1/stable
6/development -> 7/next stable, but I guess 5.99 would achieve the same and
might be even better because 99 is rarely a stable release number. To
minimize possible packaging problems with rcN vs. plain numbers  the
release candidates could be numbered 5.99.1 etc. or even 5.99.1-rc1,
5.99.2-rc2 etc. That would make the order extremely clear, i.e. there would
be no question about whether 99-rc1 is before or after 99 either logically
or in alphabetical or numerical order.

Eeli Kaikkonen