Re: Emacs Versions: major, minor and ...?

[Emanuel Berg]

mrf wrote:

> The third number after the dots is called micro or in some
> projects patch

Yes, major.minor.patch is what I've heard, I guess
major.minor.micro is more logical but it is always (sometimes)
good with a style change at the end, it makes it
more interesting.

The problem with this scheme is where do you draw the line
between these three things, exactly?

Maybe one could instead base it on what actually happens with
the software, e.g.

  module.feature.fix

where module and feature would represent new additions, while
fix would be bugfixes and organizational/cosmetic
improvements...

A simpler way where you don't have to think about this at all
is to have the version equal the date and time of the
last change. Only then, when one offers support for a piece of
software, for example on a mailing list/newsgroup such as
this, one would just assume everyone is always using the
latest version. I don't know, maybe it would depend from
situation to situation if that would be a good thing or not?

> In addition take look at the section that describe even/odd
> (stable/unstable) strategy

I always wondered about that, how do you know if it is stable
or not? Unstable is easier because then one can just do
whatever and say it is unstable - and the word "unstable" does
include all cases when it is stable as well, right? - but how
can one tell if it is stable or not? Is there a different
process, some method in particular, or has it just been "out
there" for some specified period of time, and after that one
assumes its bugs have been found and rooted out?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal