zabbix versioning scheme

[fab]

Hi,

I guess I'm not the only one who wants/has to rpmbuild zabbix. I wonder how the others handle the unfavorable versioning scheme. Secondly I would like to see the scheme changed in something that creates less headaches.

My problem is that I'm not allowed to change the release scheme, so I'll have to increase the release everytime I build the same Version of a program new.
And just using 1.1{alpha|beta}* won't work well when the final zabbix version 1.1 will be released, because rpm could think that 1.1 is a lower version than 1.1alpha.

Keeping 1.1{alpha|beta}.{??} is not really nice for rpm and dpkg neither. Maybe it would be nicer if Alexei changes the scheme and uses the odd numbers for alpha/beta releases and equal numbers for stable releases. So

1.1 would be the first unstable release
1.2 would be the first stable release

This would mean that we now would have:
1.1.13

and the packagers wouldn't have to bother the alpha/beta thingy in the name.

Regards,
Frank.

[Alexei]

Having both 1.0 and 1.1 released I'm thinking about change of ZABBIX versioning schema.

1.0 - stable
1.1 - current major stable
1.1.x - next stable releases (fixes to 1.1)

(skipping 1.2 as no 1.1 is available for unstable releases)

1.3 - next major unstable (1.3, 1.3.1, ..., 1.3.x)
1.4 - next major stable (1.4, 1.4.1, ..., 1.4.x)

Any thoughts?

[limo]

I am voting for this scheme. It is really better than alpha and beta.