Re: Release versioning inconsistency

On ons, 2012-06-20 at 13:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> >> (I do believe that using the v9.2.0beta marker is
> >> *better*, because then it sorts properly. But likely not enough much
> >> better to be inconsistent with previous versions)
> >
> > Good point. Maybe that's a reason to change the versioning scheme and
> > stick with "9.2.0betaX" everywhere. Including calling the final
> > release "9.2.0" instead of simply "9.2"?
>
> That might actually be a good idea. We can't really change the way we
> named the betas, but it's not too late to consider naming the actual
> release as 9.2.0...

The final release was always going to be called 9.2.0, but naming the
beta 9.2.0betaX is wrong. There was a previous discussion about that
particular point.