From: sera@... (Francis Hwang) Date: 2004-07-14T03:47:22+09:00 Subject: Re: Business application building with Ruby zuzu wrote in message news:... > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:37:23 +0900, Francis Hwang wrote: > > I don't think there's any consensus as to what version numbers mean. > > In the case of Lafcadio I can tell you that although it's not done, > > it's also used on real systems handling real users and non-trivial > > volume. (I believe the same can be said for ActiveRecord, too.) > > > > The site where I mainly work gets 3m hits/month; that's backed by > > Lafcadio. In fact I make sure to always have a stable bugfix branch > > and a dev branch so users can choose their level of risk. I use the > > stable bugfix branch for that main site. > > > > Francis > > > to start with, http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html > > FreeBSD (perhaps the *BSDs in general) seem to have defined a standard > for what versioning should mean. not just release vs. current vs. > stable, but also their numbering. > > so patterns exist to stablize what versioning should constitute. I wasn't saying that patterns don't exist. I was saying that consensus has not been reached. Personally, whenever I'm checking out new libraries, I always look for some sort of statement about whether it's alpha, beta, stable, whatever. Sometimes that's a note on the web page, or a little tag on the Sourceforge or Rubyforge page. Is the Ruby community significantly out of step with the broader free software community on this? F.