bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 1.12 dev version number


From: Derek Robert Price
Subject: Re: 1.12 dev version number
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:37:22 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01

Mark D. Baushke wrote:
Derek Robert Price <address@hidden> 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.

So far I like this idea best, and it goes along with the one request I received via private email that I make sure release numbers keep increasing [according to Debian standards], so 1.12.0.1 is always greater than 1.12, etc, but I still don't like the version number looking so close to the 1.11.5 stable. I like being able to tell people to keep up to date from the stable 1.11.x branch or follow new development with the 1.12.x releases. It's just plain less to explain.

Maybe something like the Autoconf project uses, where odd minor numbers mean stable releases and even minors mean development releases? So 1.11.x releases are stable, 1.12.x releases will be development releases until it goes to a stable 1.13.x?

Then 1.12.0.1 could remain the current trunk version and I'd probably just bump to 1.12.1 for the first dev release.

Derek

--
                *8^)

Email: address@hidden

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
--
"I wish you and yours every joy in life, old chap, and tons of money, and
may you never die till I shoot you."

        -James Joyce, "Dubliners"





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]