4.2 BETA?

Jasper Huijsmans jasper at xfce.org
Wed Sep 22 12:37:51 CEST 2004


On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 03:38:04PM +0530, Biju Chacko wrote:
> Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> >i'm not too fond of adding a fourth number either.  perhaps bump them 
> >all up to the highest version number?  though that's something like 
> >4.1.25.  or maybe bump them all up to 4.1.90?  for the dev cycle, the 
> >version numbers are largely meaningless; just a way for us to make sure 
> >packages have good dependencies when we add something to a library that 
> >another package requires.  now that most things are frozen now, APIs 
> >should be stable, so a 4.1.90 scheme might work well.
> 
> I'm afraid I didn't quite understand that ... could you elaborate?
> 

The modules in CVS all have their own 4.1.x version number now, that don't
match at all.

So, the idea is that for beta 1 we bump all versions to 4.1.90 and call it the
Xfce 4.1.90 release. High 'micro' versions (as in major.minor.micro) are often 
used to denote beta releases.

	Jasper



More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list