rc version scheme incompatible with amo

[al_9x]

AMO will not upgrade rc versions.

[Giorgio Maone]

Yes, I noticed it some hours ago.
Everyone installed a rc version automatically opted in the beta channel.
I'm gonna keep this schema anyway, and update AMO with both the "final" rc (for beta channel users) and the identical stable (no rc) version.

[al_9x]

In theory it should work:

A string-part that exists is always less-then a nonexisting string-part (1.6a is less than 1.6).

but it doesn't. It appears that it doesn't like string parts reserved for the beta channel (a,b,alpha,beta,pre,rc) If you use a different string (1.9.9.97relcan2), it seems to work. However, what's wrong with just numbers?

[al_9x]

I'm gonna keep this schema anyway

Why? You can avoid the beta channel by using non reserved string parts. But why not just stick to numbers?

[Giorgio Maone]

I wanted to make the beta versioning more expressive (experimental vs almost-stable) and to pick a 1.9... version for branching security updates for Fx 2.x when I drop feature support (like 1.99rv1 or 1.99legacy1).

[al_9x]

In case you find it useful, here's a Fx version linked branching scheme that should work without strings or beta channel. By the way, there no need for 4 version parts, 3 is enough.

1) let's say you're at version 1.9.99
2) you create 1.10.x for Fx >= 3
3) then, 1.9.(100 - infinity) can be uploaded with Fx2 compat and I think AMO is smart enough to offer the latest compatible version

[al_9x]

update AMO with both the "final" rc (for beta channel users) and the identical stable (no rc) version.

The only thing, though, it will not be clear what you have installed. How would one tell if it's a true beta or a "release" beta?