[asterisk-users] Opinions on Release Numbering

[Dave Fullerton]

Russell Bryant wrote:
> I have been having discussions with various members of the development community
> in regards to changes to the way we manage open source Asterisk releases.  The
> changes that we eventually decide on will determine how we manage the 1.6
> version of Asterisk.  I will be posting much more detailed information about 1.6
> in the near future.
> 
> What I'm looking for right now is some opinions on version numbering.  Part of
> the working plan for Asterisk 1.6 involves making release candidates for every
> 1.6.X release, so that various community members can help with doing regression
> testing on the changes before making the release.
> 
> I proposed calling the release candidates 1.6.3-rc1, 1.6.3-rc2, etc.
> 
> Another proposal has been using 1.5 to indicate that it is a release candidate.
>  For example, 1.5.3, 1.5.3.1, 1.5.3.2, etc., would be the release candidates for
> the upcoming 1.6.3 release.
> 
> What is your opinion?  I certainly want the release naming to be as obvious as
> possible.
> 

If I remember what was discussed in a recent VoIP users conference, you 
guys (being digium) were considering moving to a more rapid release 
schedule similar to how the linux kernel is currently released. IE 1.6.4 
would likely contain additional features over 1.6.3 and 1.6.3.1 would 
contain bug fixes for 1.6.3. That being the case I think the 1.5.x 
scheme would get confusing very quick. Example: is 1.5.3.1 the second RC 
for 1.6.3 or the first RC for 1.6.3.1?

I would vote for the 1.6.3.x-rc1,rc2 etc scheme. This does begs the 
question of the purpose of the odd number releases 1.1.x,1.3.x,1.5.x 
(which don't exist). Will asterisk continue to increment in even number 
releases just because or will odd numbers be used at some point?

-Dave