[libvirt] ANNOUNCE: Stable release libvirt-0.9.11.2

[Doug Goldstein]

On May 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Daniel Veillard <veillard at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:43:32AM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 01:38:27PM -0500, Doug Goldstein thus spake:
>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Jason Helfman <jhelfman at e-e.com> wrote:
>>>>> Okay, I screwed up the tarball for the first stable release, due to not
>>>>> building it from a fresh checkout :/ No changes for this one except a
>>>>> version
>>>>> bump and dist rebuild.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This release can be downloaded at:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://libvirt.org/sources/libvirt-0.9.11.2.tar.gz
>>>>> 
> 
>  Now http://libvirt.org/sources/stable_updates/libvirt-0.9.11.2.tar.gz
> 
>>>>> Cole
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> libvir-list mailing list
>>>>> libvir-list at redhat.com
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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 0.9.11.2 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-0.9.11.2.tar.gz ?
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
> 
>  Okay, I created a stable_updates subdirectory on the download area
> (Cole you own it !) and moved the 3 existing releases there.
> I think that:
>   - avoid confusion with usual releases
>   - makes clear that they are updates
>   - remove the need to change the names or releases
> i.e. it resolves the confusion in the simplest way and allow to point
> to the exact location for each content.
> 
> Cole, would you mind updating the docs to point to that new
> sub-directory ?
> 
>   thanks,
> 
> Daniel
> 
Speaking as a distro package maintainer this kind of sucks since this is a special case but if 0.9.11.x confuses people then so be it. The same people must still be struggling with Linux being 3.x.y instead of 2.6.x.y for stable releases. Can we expect the same behavior for libxml as well then?