Smart on Fedora and openSUSE

[Anders F Björklund]

Gustavo Niemeyer:

>>> It's just names, but I used "1.1.2" for the gathering of fixes.
>> (including some downstream patches that seemed good to go...)
>>
>> While "1.2" had some new features added, like the Qt interface.
>> But maybe those would be better off as a "2.0" branch instead ?
>
> It is just naming indeed, but so far Smart has followed a different
> pattern which I'd like to maintain if that's ok with you.  1.1.X would
> be some very minor change, perhaps packaging, perhaps a small bug.
> 1.2 is a new interim release which brings fixes collected over some
> time or new features.  2.0 will be a major release which must present
> significant development.  Nothing we're doing is significant enough to
> render it into 2.0.

That's fine with me, the "1.1.1" is rather stealthy anyway since
it's not readily available from the homepage downloads and so on.
Not sure if the fedora/opensuse fixes in "1.1.2" was bigger than
the ubuntu fixes in "1.1.1" but that doesn't really matter to me.

The main reason for doing a new interim release would be to integrate
various patches already applied downstream in the distros packaging.

Maybe the current "trunk" series should be split anyway, to allow
for faster integration of more experimental features while still
offering a completely stable main branch for legacy deployments ?
And there the "1.x" versus "2.x" naming split felt rather natural...

For instance, you might want one "stable" version for servers
and one "testing" version for hobbyists and enthusiasts [sic] ?

--anders