On tor, 2012-06-21 at 16:19 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Dickson S. Guedes <listas@guedesoft.net> wrote:
> > 2012/6/20 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>:
> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.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...
> >
> >
> > May be a symlink could be created just do fit the same pattern that other
> > versions do and keeps the actual links (for beta) working.
>
> That we can do - in fact, done.
Why not just move the whole thing and not increase the confusion? The
press releases don't refer to the directory directly.
