C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not quite sure if I should risk muddying the waters further, but I
> have (sort of) an idea and perhaps it would make sense to other people.
>
> If we step back and take a look at the requirements driving various
> aspects of this debate, I think the main points are:
>
> 1. Most open source software uses a numerical X.Y.Z style numbering
> system for released versions of software. This is common enough that
> package management systems (Gentoo for example) are best suited to work
> with such arrangements.
>
> 2. When debugging Axiom, the most useful information is the branch and
> revision used to build the binary - we want to preserve this
> information in a form that can be easily accessed at need. The current
> banner report reflects this.
No it does not. Since wh-sandbox is currently one of the best working flavours
of axiom, you must not ignore it.
Switching to yet another version scheme is, in my opinion, stupid and
misleading.
PLEASE don't.
Personally, I like the version scheme yymm proposed and consistently used by
Tim. It does lack some information, unfortunately, so I proposed to extend it
to
yy.mm.branch.revision-number.
Merits:
* Gaby agreed, I don't know about Waldek.
* it doesn't add yet another versioning scheme.
* it is crystal clear.
Drawbacks: might be a bit harder to implement, since the version number needs
to get information from svn. But I'd hope that it would be doable.
In fact, why shouldn't that be done manually?
Martin
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
