Re: [xmonad] upstream version

I'm sorry for botching up the thread subject. What holds up official releases, then? It seems to me, the state of Linux DE's has changed significantly since 2012. Xmonad 0.11 doesn't seem to play nice straight 'out of the box' on fresh installations of the latest, largest distributions. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Tamas Papp wrote:

"Bleeding edge" can be a concern if it has implications on for bugs that affect user experience. I don't know if it is Haskell or the skills of the xmonad team (probably both), but I have always used the latest xmonad and found it remarkably bug-free. In fact, I would find it difficult to name any other piece of nontrivial software that has a similar level of stability.

Best,

Tamas

On Mon, Mar 02 2015, Alexander Genaud wrote:

...

Or, if x.x.B already has meaning (bugfix release), then rc (release candidate) notation would serve a similar purpose:

0.12.5-rc1 ==> 0.12.5 (bugfix release) 0.13-rc1 ==> 0.13 (major/minor release)

I think the difference is EVERY Java release must be a supported

standard

...

target. Xmonad has local, but no global, critical child dependencies. One would never recommend that a general user compiles bleeding edge Javac for any real work -- yet that's what some Xmonad-ers have recommended for two years.

If 0.12.3 exists, but is not considered stable, then 0.12-rc3 or 0.12b3 would seem more appropriate.

...

Oh, yes.. i didn't check the page. I've been too much in the java world using the snapshot descriptor, it would be cool if we had such a thing in xmonad in where 0.12 would be release notation for example and 0.12.5 would be upstream notation, and a preparation for 0.13. 0.12.5 is released as 0.13 and the darcs version is updated to 0.13.5 and so forth.. I attach the patches in case this resonates with you.