[apparmor] AppArmor release versions

[Christian Boltz]

Hello,

Am Mittwoch, 14. September 2011 schrieb Seth Arnold:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 04:22:46PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> >> The proposal is the next development release moves to a
> >> 
> >>   2.7.0.99.xx  format
> > 
> > I think 99.X is fine for all alpha, beta, and rc releases. Since
> > they're always linear, 99.1 is whatever we say it is, 99.2 is next,
> > etc.  Alternatively we could declare a mapping from the "99" part
> > to alpha/beta/rc?
> > 
> >    .90 == alpha
> >    .95 == beta
> >    .99 == rc

How will you name rc2? ;-)

> I prefer the "whatever we say it is" approach; I don't think we
> need any extra layers of formalism.

ACK.
However we should avoid to have more than 9 alpha, beta and rc releases 
because .100 looks slightly strange ;-)

> But if you're (anyone :) familiar with another project that uses this
> formalism and _not_ using it would be confusing or annoying, then
> I've got nothing against it, either.

ACK, but I'm not aware of a project that uses the .99 style and has 
formal rules for how to name alphas and betas.


Regards,

Christian Boltz
-- 
Zwar sind CSS-Bugs kein Alleinstellungsmerkmal des Internet Explorers, 
jedoch beansprucht Microsoft seit vielen Jahren die Marktführerschaft.
[Dirk Jesse auf
http://www.highresolution.info/spotlight/entry/was_sie_ueber_css-
frameworks_wissen_sollten/]