Re: Release versioning inconsistency

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Dickson S. Guedes <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net> wrote:
> 2012/6/20 Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is
>>>> *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much
>>>> better to be inconsistent with previous versions)
>>>
>>> Good point. Maybe that's a reason to change the versioning scheme and
>>> stick with "9.2.0betaX" everywhere. Including calling the final
>>> release "9.2.0" instead of simply "9.2"?
>>
>> That might actually be a good idea. We can't really change the way we
>> named the betas, but it's not too late to consider naming the actual
>> release as 9.2.0...
>
>
> May be a symlink could be created just do fit the same pattern that other
> versions do and keeps the actual links (for beta) working.

That we can do - in fact, done.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/