[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] ANNOUNCE: Stable release libvirt-

Hash: SHA256

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:56:05PM -0600, Eric Blake thus spake:
>On 04/30/2012 12:43 PM, Jason Helfman wrote:
>>>> Is there any particular reason that the project is using the same naming
>>>> convention for stable releases? It appears to be a minor revision update
>>>> from the standard release cycle. From an outsiders prospective, I don't
>>>> know how anyone would think that is not a standard update from
>>>> 0.9.11, as there is no distinction in either the name from the
>>>> distributed
>>>> file, or documentation (unless I missed it denoted specifically on
>>>> libvirt.org).
>>>> Would there be any objection to using a distribution file name
>>>> libvirt-stable- ?
>>>> To me, it is confusing, but that is just my opinion.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jason
>>> Don't change the tarball name like that. That would just plain suck
>>> and be different than how 99% of projects out there do things.
>> Ok, but having the same download path is just as confusing, as it looks
>> like
>> an update to 0.9.11, when it is a different release.
>But for all intents and purposes, it IS an update to 0.9.11 - it is
>0.9.11 plus backported patches that you would otherwise get in 0.9.12,
>but where 0.9.12 adds features.

Ok, I see. I was under the impression that these release were going to
follow a release cycle of RedHat, and therefore wouldn't be changing that
much, or get too many updates.

- -jgh

- -- 
Jason Helfman
System Administrator
E4AD 7CF1 1396 27F6 79DD  4342 5E92 AD66 8C8C FBA5
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]