On 6/16/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bill Dortch wrote: > Isn't it fairly common to drop the trailing .0 in a 3-number version? > > I think in the Ruby world it's more common to keep the third ('tiny') > version component (as in the RubyGems RationalVersioningPolicy). But > what I'm really looking for is a statement of JRuby's policy, so people > can code to it (and code won't break every time a change is made). It > would be nice if release candidate versions we're encoded in such a way > that > or >= would still work in comparing versions. But mostly I'm > looking for definition, something that could reliably be used in a regexp.I agree with keeping all three elements, and I have no strong opinion on what to call trunk right now. 1.0 branch would obviously be 1.0.1 right now. Perhaps 1.1.0 is ok for trunk? And I agree with keeping RCx out of the physical version numbers in the future. Perhaps they should only be available in the package, but not in the reported version number?
We just need to make sure we have a way of telling what the build is. When people report bugs it would stink if they said it is 2.0 when it is really 2.0 release candidate 2. I am sure we can come up with something... -Tom -- Blog: http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ThomasEEnebo Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
