Module versioning

[Olivier Fourdan]

Hi Jasper,

Unless xffm gets fixed, we won't have a beta (or we might keep xffm
aside for the beta)

Cheers,
Olivier.

On Mon, 2003-05-05 at 14:05, Jasper Huijsmans wrote:
> Ok, we should do something about this versioning madness:
> 
> libxfce4mcs-0.0.5.tar.gz
> libxfce4util-0.3.0.tar.gz
> libxfcegui4-0.0.21.tar.gz
> xfce4-0.10.2.tar.gz
> xfce4-iconbox-0.1.tar.gz
> xfce-mcs-manager-0.2.0.tar.gz
> xfce-mcs-plugins-0.1.tar.gz
> xfce-utils-0.2.3.tar.gz
> xfdesktop-0.1.tar.gz
> xffm-0.1.288.tar.gz
> xfprint-0.0.2.tar.gz
> xfwm4-0.1.tar.gz
> 
> Can we please get some less random version numbering scheme in place?
> The libraries are ok, although perhaps we should define some goals for
> when we are going to call it version 1. 
> 
> Are we going to be calling the modules xfcwm4 1.0 for the release or
> 4.0. My vote would go to 4.0. Bugfixes should be 4.0.x, development
> versions 4.1.x and the next stable release 4.2.0.
> 
> IMO, it would be best if we started to call the betas something like
> 3.90.x for consistency.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 	Jasper
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> http://moongroup.com/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev
-- 
Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at xfce.org>
http://www.xfce.org