Re: Policy: Versioning Macros In The Archive

[Tom Howard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Peter,

>  > Well, I'd argue that's not a release version number;
>  > that's a CVS version number. It was never a good idea to
>  > put that in @version for precisely the reasons you note,
>  > and I have not done that for quite some time. I have,
>  > however, included a release version number.
> 
> Right, but that release information has no relevance for the
> archive. When someone else sends in a patch for your macro
> and we can't reach you to check back (that _has_ happened in
> the past), then we have no way of bumping that release
> version number of yours. So exactly did it say in the first
> place?

We shouldn't worry about bumping the version number for the author.

Having a date as a version is a bad idea.  For instance just say someone
submits a patch for one of my macros and I'm un-contactable (for
whatever reason) or don't notice.  When I make some other change and
submit an update, if we are using version numbers, a version number
conflict will be noticed and I'll have to grab the changes the other
person did.  If a date is use, I've bumped the date, it's newer than
anything else, so no-one notices straight away they my update is missing
the patch from the other person, until someone stuff who relies on the
patch breaks.

Cheers,

- --
Tom Howard

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x433B299A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFB9Yb7w1G4ZUM7KZoRAvTJAJ9woh78nffdWREY0w7VBTRvv0ZXlACgpyka
0G3dTFrn7DKXEdPdqHg8mLk=
=U+5C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----