Re: No calc in pretest?

[Kim F. Storm]

Jon Cast <address@hidden> writes:

> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
> >     It uses high-numbered "minor-minor" numbers (which I think is a
> >     good idea), but the "minor" number of the pretest is plain
> >     wrong!
> 
> > It would perhaps be logical to use negative minor-minor version
> > numbers.  I wonder if that would break anything.  We could try it.
> 
> I think this is a good idea.  The only question is what minor/micro
> version number CVS versions should have under this scheme---the minor
> number of the following version and a negative micro number, or the
> minor number of the preceding version and a high micro number.  Hmm.

The CVS version and the pretest should use the same minor number as the
next release.  That's the only consistent numbering scheme.

Maybe the CVS version could be fixed at 21.4.-99
Pretests would then use 21.4.-98, 21.4.-97, ...  etc. as a count-down
towards the final release which will be 21.4.0
Any bug fixes for that release will be 21.4.1, 21.4.2 etc.

I hope 98 pretests will be enough :-)

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk