-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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 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.
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 experts-exchange.com http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_4830110.html E4AD 7CF1 1396 27F6 79DD 4342 5E92 AD66 8C8C FBA5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iF4EAREIAAYFAk+e4T0ACgkQXpKtZoyM+6XyDQD9EUfHoC3KLGZ5TNc1HmqdOEJC pG5TyCM7lkEG0WAwFvkA/jcpBeeXRH6NIV6yDFSyedObqppjm5jEV4oCwy7sIsF8 =ksh7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----