[apparmor] AppArmor release versions

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 07:57:10PM +0200, Christian Boltz wrote:
> 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? ;-)

.99.2! :)

> > 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 ;-)

Yeah, this is probably the best.

> 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.

Doesn't glibc just do .99.1, .99.2, etc? Oh, hm, no, they seem to start
with .90. Ignore me!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook                                            @outflux.net