"Phillips, Steven" wrote:
> However, given that 3rd parties are taking the base release of ME and customizing it (you being one such third party I believe) we probably need a standard way for you to put your own paw print on it so you know what version it is and we know that it is not a standard release. Is this the reason you have raised this issue?
Not really - any numbering scheme is modifiable by augmentation for
mods - just add another letter/number
Wondered about major-minor-patch(or not) numbering cos it was the scheme
Dan Lawrences original uemacs used ( duet anyway - 3.9, 4.0, ..)
- I'd got used to it with that and other things
and i tend to think it gives a bit more more info
- i.e whether the new version is a major change rev ( new features or
or just some minor revs/additions - also immediately apparent where a
rev fits in the
previous sets gone before.
Date based just indicates that theres a new rev and that its after any
wrt Jons notes about multiple internal revs but only 1 or 2 releases per
year and only
working on latest rev ( without patches) I understand about the release
situation - I'm more asking about marking the releases more
I tend to think that even internally you'd be as well off using a
major-minor-patch/tweak triplet rather than just a date ... that way
theres some indication of how widespread/big the change is rather than
having to know it a priori from
the date release
fro your example
"Internally we may generate say 50 different versions
between one release and the next, some of these
changes are trivial, others may be substantial
code re-work. I think this year we have laid down
2 new dated versions internally where the
functionality has substantially changed for testing."
I'd imagine you could tag these as the trivial changes being tagged with
version numbers ( indicating 'triviality') with the major changes -
marked as minor changes...
The actual release may be major rev or a minor rev jump reflecting
minor rev steps..
Not that it matters much to me anyway - Your project and work - mark it
how you like
but I was just wondering if anyone had considered it at all
given that many openSrc projects use that version scheme..
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Hopkirk [mailto:hops@...]
> > Sent: 11 December 2003 19:11
> > To: group
> > Subject: [Fwd: [jasspa] version numbering]
> > I asked this earlier but I guess it got lost in my other verbiage.
> > Are there any plans/thoughts of moving from a date based version
> > numbering system
> > i.e Dec 2002
> > to the (now) more common triplet
> > major-minor-patch
> > perhaps with production releases being even numbered ??
> > -- hops