On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:13:35PM -0800, Jason Dagit wrote: > On 2/28/06, Josef Svenningsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just have a question about the versioning number. Given all the great new > > features added to darcs in this release shouldn't it be 1.1.0 ? > > I think it should be. > > > I'm not aware of any darcs specific scheme here but the standard > > convention[1] is to > > use the third digit (or rather number) for bugfix releases only. To keep > > confusion to a minimum I think we should stick with that scheme.
I think David intended to use linux-kernel-ish versions, so that 1.<odd>.<anything> is development versions and 2.<whatever...> is something really different than 1.<whatever...>, and that maybe the new conflictors would start out as 1.1.x and then become 1.2.x. But I wouldn't mind the more common <major>.<minor>.<bugfix>. > Perhaps we could even do something like once every X months there is a > feature freeze. During the feature freeze the unstable repo is handed > to Tommy for Y days (or weeks) where only bug fixes are accepted in > Tommy's version. When the Y days are over he releases it to the > world. Meanwhile, the unstable branch has its middle version number > incremented when the freeze starts and continues to accept features. I haven't felt any need for a more complicated release mechanism than pulling stuff into stable by good judgement and start a new release when it feels appropriate. But I may be missing the point. -- Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
