2009/12/22 Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > I think skipping minors on release versions is icky, but I guess that's > just > me hehe. > > Any takers for x.y.z for releases, with x.y.<svn> for dev? > There is never a possibility they will clash unless we first do ~<current > svn revision> z's per x.y > > I prefer having a clean separation of dev and release with the invariant that 0.6.x < 0.7.x < 0.8.x and also 0.6.x < 0.6.y iff x < y. If you mix up svn micro releases and real micro releases with the same minor number you lose this. if you use the numbers for any sort of dependency driven packaging tool it'll probably end up favouring dev versions over release versions which would be *bad* :-)
-- Rob > Robbie > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Aidan Skinner [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 22 December 2009 21:42 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Release numbering suggestion > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Robert Godfrey > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So, I'm +1 for dev builds being 0.<2x+1>.<svn rev number>, and > > released > > > builds being 0.<2x>.<meaningful micro version> > > > > Sounds like a plan to me. > > > > - Aidan > > > > -- > > Apache Qpid - AMQP, JMS, other messaging love http://qpid.apache.org > > "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > >
