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 16:27:03 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01

Kaz Kylheku wrote:

Among the 4 options would be: do the Linux kernel thing. Odd numbers
are experimental, even are release. So in this model, you would have a
stable 1.10 code stream, with builds like 1.10.{1,2,3, ...} then you
would branch it and on the trunk have experimental 1.11.{1,2,3, ...}.
When the trunk reaches stability, you put that out as 1.12, branch it
and switch to the odd 1.13 for the trunk.


I'm leaning towards this one, though I'm not convinced even numbers should be stable for three reasons:

  1. Earlier releases are presumably the development ones and 0 comes
     before 1.  0 is even.  Therefore even minor numbers should signify
     experimental versions.
  2. There is a precedent for this in the autoconf/automake trees which
     CVS build makes heavy use of.
  3. It's easier - I don't have to change the current numbering scheme
     around - 1.11.x is stable and 1.12.x will be experimental.


The 1.12.0.x method is a way of adding another digit to create
something distinct from 1.12.x; this is logically equivalent to using
even versus odd numbers.


Actually, on the CVS project, the fourth version digit (always 1) denotes that the source came from the development tree (straight out of the CVS repository itself) and was not meant to be released at all.

Instead of the zero, you could use some symbol, like ``exp'' for
experimental. So the picture is:

Actually, I dislike introducing any character into the version number. We've had this discussion on this list before, and I know I have been previously on the other side, but I'm now of the thinking that it complicates things unecessarily for users and automated parsers.

#3 is bad because, again, an apparently greater version number,
1.12.1.1 is leading up to an apparently smaller one: 1.12.1.

Naw. I already said my first 1.12 release would be 1.12.1, thus rendering the ordering problem moot.

Derek

--
               *8^)

Email: address@hidden

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
--
Black holes are where God divided by zero.







reply via email to

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