Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Fwd: [jasspa] version numbering]

Expand Messages
  • Mike Hopkirk
    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
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 11, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • Phillips, Steven
      The latest and greatest thing is Server 2003 , MS moved away from year codes with XP and then came running back to our way of thinking :-) Our versioning is
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 12, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        The latest and greatest thing is 'Server 2003', MS moved away from year codes with XP and then came running back to our way of thinking :-)

        Our versioning is really the date code (see 'about' or your -V output, i.e. my ME version is 03/10/01) which just happens to be a triplet number version which is always increasing (apart from the millennium bug).

        The main reason for the triplet number approach is for people who intend to support and patch old versions, i.e. while the latest version is 15.0.0, the supplier may still be supporting 14.1.23, 14.2.4 and 13.5.7 etc. We are not aiming to do this for time reason (this is a hobby for us and as it takes us best part of a week to generate a release and we simply cannot do this too often due to other commitments). Instead we tend to fix major issues in the latest version only; we may mail out either diff logs for users to fix their own or sometimes a binary fix to a specific user to resolve their issue but this is very rare.

        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?

        Steve

        > -----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
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > ---------------------~-->
        > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
        > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the
        > US & Canada.
        > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/89EolB/TM
        > --------------------------------------------------------------
        > -------~->
        >
        > ______________________________________________________________
        > ____________
        >
        > This is an unmoderated list. JASSPA is not responsible for
        > the content of
        > any material posted to this list.
        >
        > To unsubscribe, send a mail message to
        >
        > mailto:jasspa-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > or visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jasspa and
        > modify your account settings manually.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      • Jon Green
        ... No, we only make 1 or 2 releases per year so it is much easier to stick with the year numbering that we currently use. It is also much easier to reference.
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 12, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Mike Hopkirk wrote:
          > 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

          No, we only make 1 or 2 releases per year so it is
          much easier to stick with the year numbering that
          we currently use. It is also much easier to reference.
          We do not make a release every 2 weeks where the
          minor or revision numbers may increase, hence it
          is not necessary for us to use this type of numbering.
          There are still quite a few packages out there
          that use date numbering, typically 8 chars i.e.
          20031212 which may appear in a package name.

          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.e the version I use at the moment is date
          coded 03/10/01, this has been patched multiple
          times - 2 times this week, but I cannot identify
          that this has been patched from the version)

          We do not have enough time to release everyone of
          these changes as we would have to build across
          all systems and re-test everything in addition
          all of the documentation then has to be brought up
          to date. It is much easier for us to sick with a
          single major release, with maybe one minor. A major
          version release will will typically take 1 month to
          prepare by the time all of the changes have been
          documented, packages built for different
          platforms and verified.

          Hence the date format works nicely for us !

          Jon.
        • Thomas Hundt
          Proposed new version numbering scheme: 20031212.0.0 ... -Th
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 12, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Proposed new version numbering scheme: 20031212.0.0

            :-)

            -Th


            >>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
            >
            >
            > No, we only make 1 or 2 releases per year so it is
            > much easier to stick with the year numbering that
            > we currently use. It is also much easier to reference.
            > Jon.
          • Jon Green
            ... Which is pretty much the same as the package version numbers on the JASSPA site as generated in 2002/3. I assume that .0.0 means midnight ! Jon.
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 12, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Thomas Hundt wrote:
              > Proposed new version numbering scheme: 20031212.0.0
              >
              > :-)
              >
              > -Th
              >

              Which is pretty much the same as the package version
              numbers on the JASSPA site as generated in 2002/3.
              I assume that .0.0 means midnight !

              Jon.
            • Mike Hopkirk
              ... Not really - any numbering scheme is modifiable by augmentation for customization mods - just add another letter/number Wondered about
              Message 6 of 6 , Dec 14, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                "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
                customization
                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
                incompat change)
                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
                previous ones

                ....
                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
                granularly..

                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
                incremental patch
                version numbers ( indicating 'triviality') with the major changes -
                substantial rework-
                marked as minor changes...
                The actual release may be major rev or a minor rev jump reflecting
                internal
                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

                -- hops
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.