On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Tamas Papp <tkpapp@gmail.com> 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 <alex@genaud.net> 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.