Re: BiCon 0.0.20040401 Released

[Muhammad Alkarouri <malkarouri at yahoo dot co dot uk>]

On س, 2004-04-03 at 07:29, Mohammed Elzubeir wrote:
> Despite the fact that I now happen to like the way Behdad has named it,
> this is not how it is put in the Dev-Guide. 
> 

I was actually aware that the naming is not in conformance with the dev
guide, I apologize for that. I didn't like the alpha naming way in the
guide. As Behdad has now added, it is necessary for packaging.

Another release suggestion:
I hope Arabeyes will establish some reference platforms for testing, say
fedora core 1, debian sarge, etc. (Something like the Source Forge
compile farm). So we can avoid errors that show up in some
distros/releases early in the process.

> Now that this has already been released this way, I would like to know
> if others would like to make that change in the DevGuide.
> 

I do.

> Alpha relases would bare the major.minor version number plus the
> snapshot date. In case of a never released version a 0.0 version would
> be placed. (I know I personally like it).
> 

I am not sure if that is compatible with the current numbering for other
releases. I mean beta releases are odd, stable releases are even, and
release candidates are odd (per example).

> On another note, MYousif has created a Slackware package for it, it
> would be nice if this package is uploaded to the sf.net downloads area.
> 

My pleasure.

Salam.
Muhammad Alkarouri