4.2 BETA?

[Jasper Huijsmans]

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