From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18921 invoked from network); 8 Jun 1999 15:14:04 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 8 Jun 1999 15:14:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 14372 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 1999 15:13:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6531 Received: (qmail 14365 invoked from network); 8 Jun 1999 15:13:47 -0000 Message-Id: <9906081445.AA29402@ibmth.df.unipi.it> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: Change of coordinator In-Reply-To: "Oliver Kiddle"'s message of "Mon, 07 Jun 1999 14:04:03 DFT." <375BC343.B637D9BE@thoth.u-net.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:45:01 +0200 From: Peter Stephenson Oliver Kiddle wrote: > Wouldn't it possibly make more sense to call the next official > development release version 3.9.0, working towards a stable version 4.0. > The 20 pws releases are quite a substantial advance from 3.1.5 and it > would make sense for this to be clearer in the version numbering. Also, > I would have thought that the 3.1 advances over 3.0 are approaching > being sufficient for the major version number change? I haven't really decided, because I don't really know what the criteria for 3.1 still being a beta version was. If 3.1.6 is stable we should certainly think about a production release 3.2 or even 4.0. I don't think I want to change the sequence before that, however. The key seems to me to be testing the next version as widely as possible. For example, dynamical loading, which is a key feature, is reported not to work on SunOS 5.7, and it's quite possible --enable-lfs is doing something to --enable-zsh-mem, and so on. There weren't actually so many complaints about 3.1.5. -- Peter Stephenson Tel: +39 050 844536 WWW: http://www.ifh.de/~pws/ Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarroti 2, 56127 Pisa, Italy