Eric Kow wrote: > This came up during benchmarking. It's a bit hard to talk about > benchmarking because one has to understand our version scheme where > > - darcs 2.3.97.x refers to darcs 2.4 alpha x > - darcs 2.3.98.x refers to darcs 2.4 beta x > - darcs 2.3.99.x refers to darcs 2.4 rc x > > See http://wiki.darcs.net/Benchmarks > > The scheme was designed to solve a practical issue, that you could not > use things other than numbers for Hackage version numbers (probably a > feature, not a bug). But it has its drawbacks in that people are > frequently confused. > > I recommend that we revise our version scheme. Starting from the July > Darcs release, I vote we start incrementing numbers in the odd/even > fashion. For example, come July, we would release a > > darcs 2.5.0.x for darcs 2.6 alphas > darcs 2.5.1.x for darcs 2.6 betas > darcs 2.5.2.x for darcs 2.6 release candidates > > If we wanted to accommodate point releases, we could add another > column of numbers (darcs 2.5.1.0.x would therefore correspond to > darcs 2.6.1 alpha x), but that's likely to be overkill. > > My hope is that this scheme would be a lot more intuitive and require > less explanation. We can still informally refer to 2.5.0.x as 2.6 > alpha, but at least we'll avoid confusing 2.5 with 2.4.
I can't see any win here over the current system which I personally find perfectly fine and understandable. The 97...99 numbers give clear intuition that they are "close to the next version number". The odd/even scheme does not have this property. The only advantage of the latter system lies in the ability to actually _release_ intermediate development versions for testing. If you plan to do so, well, I'd agree. Otherwise keep it as it is. Cheers Ben _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
