Re: [Cppunit-devel] version 1.6?

[Baptiste L. <bl...@cl...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve M. Robbins" <ste...@vi...>
To: "Cpp Unit Develpment Mailing List" <cpp...@li...>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Cppunit-devel] version 1.6?


> On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:43:14PM +0200, Baptiste Lepilleur wrote:
> > Quoting "Steve M. Robbins" <ste...@vi...>:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Would anyone get offended if we call the next release "1.6.0", and
> > > move to the convention that version x.y.z comes from the STABLE branch
> > > for even-valued "y", and from the UNSTABLE branch for odd-valued "y" ?
> >
> >   I'm not really familiar with Linux version numbering. Let me check a
few fact:
> >
> > - z is a "patch level": nothing changed in functionnality, but some bug
where
> > fixed.
> > - y is a "functionnality/compatibility level": some functionnality where
added,
> > or some minor compability issues where raised.
> > - x is an "architecture level": major architecture change,
functionnality ?
>
> Yes.  Although there are no hard and fast rules, people generally
> expect the version numbering "x.y.z" to reflect "major", "minor",
> and "micro" differences, as you suggest.
>
> In addition to that, there is the CVS tree.  Since people will
> inevitably use the CVS tree, and submit but reports, we need to be
> able to tell whether the version in question comes from a bona-fide
> release, or from CVS.  I think it is convenient to be able to
> distinguish them based on version number.  That implies that the CVS
> sources would always have a version number attached that is *never* a
> released version.  [Except for a small window of some minutes while a
> release is being prepared.]
>
> It is to support this that I proposed moving to "even = stable",
> "odd = unstable" for the minor version number (or "y", as I called it).
>
> For example, the next release [which I think we can safely make this
> weekend, yes?] will be 1.6.0.  I will check in the sources with
> this version number, and tag it.  Immediately after building the
> tar file, I will update the version to 1.7.0 and commit that to CVS.
    Yes we can do the release. If it come to worth, we can always do a
"micro release".

>
> The CVS head stays in the 1.7 series, leading to a 1.8.0 release.
>
> When we need to make the first bugfix to 1.6, I will create a branch
> rooted at 1.6.0 for the 1.6.x series.
>
> How does that sound?

    This version numbering seems good to me. One of the problem there was
with the bug reports, is that we did not know which version they were
related to.

    Baptiste.
---
Baptiste Lepilleur <gai...@fr...>   http://gaiacrtn.free.fr/index.html
Author of The Text Reformatter, a tool for fanfiction readers and writers.
Language: English, French (Well, I'm French).