Next focus: PROCESS

[Jesse Phillips]

On Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 10:22:32 UTC, foobar wrote:
> To summarize:

> 2. The version scheme is meaningless. Please check out 
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/#firefox as an 
> example. It's perfectly clear, you can choose what Mozilla 
> calls a channel - i.e "release" or "beta".

This is a poor example as it doesn't show how the development 
team develops these versions.

If we are going to have a branch supported separate from the 
beta/dev builds then we need a way to say that this stable 
version is newer but is not as new as the beta/dev.

If we release 2.61 as a stable, we would then develop new 
features in which version? 2.62 beta 1? If so, when we release 
2.61 with a bug fix which version do we release? 2.62? 2.61 
stable 2?

You are right that version numbers have absolutely no meaning, I 
don't remember if it was you, but they are also not as important 
as the process improvements. However if we assign meaning to 
numbers there can be benefit. Mozilla basically just did away 
with the Major version. (I say we do a Linux and leave the 2 then 
realize it has no meaning and up it to 3 when we reach the age of 
the 2.0 kernel)

We should combine your beta with an added version number.

2.61.0 => bugfixes => 2.61.1
2.61.0 => newfeatures => 2.62.0 beta 1
2.62 => preparing for stabilizing => 2.62 rc1

just some thoughts.