Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0b quickfix
- From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
- Date
- Dec 22, 2005, 03:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vu0d1u7ct.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <43AA0C68.4030802@zytor.com>
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:
>>>Wouldn't it make more sense for the maintenance release to be 1.0.1? >> Maybe. Nobody mentioned this about 0.99.9a, 0.99.9b... though. > > Yeah, well, the 0.99 bit in front kind of had made that hard to do.
Well, I could have done 0.99.9.1 instead of 0.99.9a.
Show 6 quoted lines
>> The series 1.0.0[a-z] is meant to parallel 2.6.14.[123...] >> "fixes only"; OTOH I'd like to allow 1.0.[123...] to contain >> enhancements. > > Well, the Linux numbering scheme has gotten ridiculous, with the 2. in > front having no meaning.
True.
We could do 1.0.0 (base 1.0 release), 1.0.1 (instead of 1.0.0a), 1.0.2 (instead of 1.0.0b) on the "maint" branch and 1.1.0 to be next minor feature release. Do you like it better?