Maybe a 1.1.0?

[Michael Griego]

I would agree with this, however we should likely follow a more common 
versioning approach... like major.minor.release  where the minor version 
number is odd for beta and even for stable or just major.minor for 
stable and major.minor(b)release (ie 2.0b1) for betas.

--Mike

Thor Spruyt wrote:
> Alan DeKok wrote:
>   
>> Nicolas Baradakis <nbk at sitadelle.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> I'd prefer 1.1.0 rather than 1.0.6, even if I don't like branches of
>>> branches in CVS.
>>>       
>>   Yeah, I agree.
>>
>>     
>>> There many, many changes in CVS that may go in 1.1.0. I can't tell
>>> all of them, but it includes: newer autotools, {Pre,Post}-Proxy-Type
>>> stanzas, support of ${Cisco-AVPair[n]} syntax, -n and -p options in
>>> radclient, changes in rlm_attr_filter, new rlm_sql_log &
>>> radsqlrelay...
>>>       
>>   I'm OK with putting in things that are easy.  If it's hard, let's
>> punt.
>>
>>   So newer autotools make me nervous, but much of the rest of what you
>> said sounds OK.
>>
>>     
>
> It would be a good idea to start releasing beta versions to overcome the
> "nervosity".
>
> 1.1.0 = beta
> 1.1.1 = stable
> 1.1.2 = beta
> 1.1.3 = stable
> 2.0.0 = beta
> 2.0.1 = stable
> ...
>
>
> --
> Groeten, Regards, Salutations,
>
> Thor Spruyt
> M: +32 (0)475 67 22 65
> E: thor.spruyt at telenet.be
> W: www.thor-spruyt.com
>
> www.salesguide.be
> www.telenethotspot.be
>
> - 
> List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
>