On 12/2/2007, David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Probably the fact that it goes from 3 (1.2.6) to 4 (1.3.3.7) then > back to 3 (1.3.5) digit numbering. That's easy enough to follow, but > the numbering on the betas is enough to drive anyone batty. > > 1.3.3.5(fb4) > 1.3.5(2) > 1.3.5(11) > 1.3.5(pb3) > 1.3.5(fc5) > 1.3.5(3.1) > 1.3.5(4.0) > 1.3.6(7)
Thank you... yes, this is what I was referring to... Please understand - I wasn't really complaining, it was more just a casual joke about something that has always made me shake my head in bewilderment sometimes, but, since someone else took it seriously, I'll take this opportunity to plea for some version numbering sanity... So, to offer a suggestion for a different way... since I hate the 4 number system that Mozilla (and now ASSP) uses, I advocate to go back to a 3 number system. Make 1.3.0 the current stable/release, where the third digit is simply an integer that is incremented every time a new official/stable bugfix version is released, and would be the actual current stable shipping version. You could even add a 4th number to the versioning scheme that could denote something like an RC of a bugfix release... so, 1.3.5.4 would be like a dev/patch version, and once it went gold, the stable version would be incremented to 1.3.6 Dev versions would start with 1.4.0, where the third digit is simply a number that increments every time a new dev version is posted to the site. This number could go as high as you wanted - even to 3 digits (shudder)... but please forget about this confusing stuff in parenthesis - (fb4), (11), (pb3), etc... Then, once a 1.4.# was determined to be stable enough to go gold, it would be renamed 1.5.0, and a new stable branch is born... and so on. Of course, you could always use b and rc tags to indicate an impending new stable release, like, say, 1.4.52(rc1), or just 1.4(b3) or 1.4(rc1) if you like, just so everyone knows that both of these are NEWER than, say, version 1.4.15. Lastly - but this is very minor compared to the above - I'd like to propose going to an even number/stable scheme. You could make the next stable version 1.4, and then the numbers above (1.3.# and 1.4.#) would just be reversed. But, as I said, this is not nearly as big a deal as bringing some sanity to the stable/dev version numbering system itself... Hope you take this in the spirit it was intended Fritz... -- Best regards, Charles ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ Assp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
