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

Re: [virt-tools-list] VirtViewer version scheme and Windows ProductVersion


On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange redhat com> wrote:
>> I would like to know what is the purpose of the leading 0.
> It is simply part of the version number,  (major, minor, micro).
> That it is zero simply means I've not considered us to be at
> version 1.0.0 yet. It doesn't indicate that the leading 0 is
> unused.

What would you consider to be 1.0.0 ?

Why not just 1.0?

>> We could use a different package name and version scheme, but then we
>> probably want to use different path etc. That will make it harder to
>> switch between one and the other I suppose.
> Well I'd really recommend that as a community project, ovirt shouldn't
> build custom installers, instead use the official one we provide. I
> understand if RHEV wants to build an installer, as part of its product,
> but then I don't see that a productized installer is something we need
> to care about as upstream from the POV of upgrade paths, and I'd really
> expect them to use a different name too "rhev-virt-viewer" or something
> to indicate that its a productized branch.

Well, upstream would have the same issue if it would have a "stable"
release of some sort.

I tend to favour being as closed to upstream as possible, instead of
having our own product in RHEVM (more work, more complexity). But
perhaps, it's the way to go.

Marc-André Lureau

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