zuzu <sean.zuzu / gmail.com> wrote in message news:<a988e9f6040712185160cecf19 / mail.gmail.com>...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:37:23 +0900, Francis Hwang <sera / fhwang.net> 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.