From: Christopher C. <st...@tr...> - 2009-04-18 05:21:50
|
Can we just go straight to version 11 like slackware did? :) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rosegarden-devel] version numbers -- pick one From: Matthew Woehlke <mw_...@us...> To: ros...@li... Date: 04/17/09 22:54 > D. Michael McIntyre wrote: > >> On Thursday 16 April 2009, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >> >>> Or maybe we need better elementary school teachers :-). 10 comes after >>> 9. (And in the real world, it isn't always practical to bump the next >>> level of version when you hit 9. If version 0.9 is nowhere near "1.0", >>> and neither is the next version, calling it thus really isn't >>> appropriate if the version number is to mean anything.) >>> >> The problem, for example, is which is greater, Matthew, 0.7 or 0.23? >> >> Right. 0.7 is clearly greater than 0.23, so standard version check code to >> see if version is greater than or equal to 0.7 says that 0.23 is too old. >> > > Huh? Given how common this kind of versioning is, I can assure you any > non-broken version compare will consider 0.23 newer than 0.7. > > >> Sure, there's a KDE 3.5.10 which is greater than KDE 3.5.1, but that never >> confuses anyone because 10 is greater than 1 and both numbers are in the >> same "place" in the scheme. One could argue that the 0.7 and 0.23 are no >> different, and they're both in the same "place" in the scheme too, only there >> is no intervening number between them, so the whole thing could be expressed >> as 0.0.7 and 0.0.23 as well, and it's no different. >> > > Indeed. I don't understand your argument. > > Oh, well, as has been mentioned, this is becoming increasingly less > productive. > > >>> Aaaaaaand you're going to add a third number when needed, yes?) >>> >> It isn't likely we'd ever need a third number in practice. Especially if we >> just use sequential "within the year" numbers. >> > > Well, sure. I'd be worried about assuming you'd /never/ make more than > one release per month, though (especially due to some grave bug slipping > out). > > Of course, I have to ask what you plan to name the tenth release in a > given year ;-). > > |