Re: 1.12 dev version number

[Derek Robert Price]

Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> 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.

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: derek@ximbiot.com

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"