Re: 1.12 dev version number

[Mark D. Baushke]

Derek Robert Price <derek@ximbiot.com> writes:

> I currently have the trunk marked as 1.12.0.1, which is potentially
> confusing since previously thius would have meant the dev version
> _after_ a 1.12 release.
> 
> Any opinions on whether I should:
> 
>    1. Call it 1.11.99.1 on the premise that we will never reach a stable
>       1.11.99 release anyhow.

Typical GNU projects have started working toward the next major release
by startingback at m.9n where n goes from 0 thru 9 as it gets more
stable. If major rewrites are in progress then I believe I have seen the
use of m.8n for very unstable alpha changes are done on the m.80 thru
m.89 releases and then m.90 is considered the first beta-quality
release.

So, I would probably be more in favor of a 1.11.90.1 version number
at top-of-tree right now. If a release is cut for it, it becomes 1.11.91
and top-of-tree becomes 1.11.91.1.

>    2. Call it 1.12.0.0 and temporarily defy our previous standard,
>       possibly resulting in some error reporters thinking it okay to
>       truncate version numbers and report errors in 1.12.
>    3. Change the standard and call the post 1.12 version 1.12.1.1 on the
>       premise that it is leading up to 1.12.1.
>    4. Do something else entirely.
> 
> 
> I prefer #3 at the moment but I am still interested in hearing
> arguments for alternatives.

I think going with 1.11.80.1 or 1.11.90.1 as top-of-tree works with the
idea we are working toward a 1.11.81 or 1.11.91 release that is
considered unstable and bouncing up to 1.12 when the release is
considered stable is the right approach.

        -- Mark