Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 06:34:26PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
Note that I used the correct version 3.4.99.1 for this beta. We use
(3.3.99.X also for 3.4 betas). I am sorry that I used 3.5.0.0 for
beta0. The 3.5.0.x version are reserved for release candidates.

Can we tag the beta0 as 3.4.99.0 in addition to 3.5.0.0 for now? That shouldnt
hurt.

As we wont have a 3.5.0 rc0 we could silently leave the 3.5.0.0 tag where it
is, but would never need to tell anyone about it anymore.

Having:
 3.5.0beta0 => 3.4.99.0
 3.5.0beta1 => 3.4.99.1
 3.5.0rc0 => nonexistant, published rcs start at 1
 3.5.0rc1 => 3.5.0.1

If someone asks about the 3.5.0.0 tag, we could tell them to just ignore it
without lengthy discussions.

Well, people could still ask why our rcs start at 1, while our minors and
majors start at 0 and we _could_ answer that with "tradition" as OOo did so
too. That would not be the whole story as 3.X.X_m0 was the branchoff point at
OOo (quite a sensible convention), in which case our 3.5.0.0 is slightly of the
mark.

Anyway: Could we at least please double-tag 3.5.0.0 as 3.4.99.0?

Best,

Bjoern

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.