(Trimming CC:s)
I concur vociferously with PJE & Katie.
+1 to calling the trunk 0.7M, 0.7dev, 0.7alpha, or 0.7a. (In order
of preference; while "alpha" has a cool retro 50's sci-fi ring to it,
for the most part I tend to associate it with "buggy and slow").
FWIW, that's how the projects I've worked on in the past have
labelled releases. E.g. "trunk" OS builds at Apple call themselves
10.5 (+ an internal build identifier), and 10.4.x software updates
and security patches are done off a branch from 10.4. (Cynics might
observe that the thing Apple will call "10.5" would more accurately
be labelled something like "10.5dev.250" or "10.5b1" :).
--Grant
On Dec 1, 2005, at 7:58 , Phillip J. Eby wrote:
It sounds to me from this discussion that it's not a question of
forward *or* backward, but forward *and* backward numbering. If we
release a new version of an old branch, that's a postrelease tag on
the old version number. If we release an in-development milestone
of a future version, that's a prerelease tag. Whether these are
done from the trunk or a branch makes relatively little difference,
as does whether we use 0.7dev.m1 or 0.7a1 to designate a prerelease
milestone of 0.7.
I personally find the scheme we've been using to be odd, because it
doesn't reflect our *goals*. In my view, we've been working on
early (i.e. pre-release) versions of 0.6, and now we'll be working
on pre-releases of 0.7 until we're ready to release 0.7. I don't
actually know what is meant in this discussion by "forward" or
"backward" versioning, because those terms don't make sense to me
either. The numbers don't go forward or backward, we are simply
issuing either pre-releases or post-releases. What we *have* been
doing is giving post-release version numbers for our pre-release
versions. We should simply be clear about the difference between
the two.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
