In the discussion before Christmas we had agreed that next milestone cycle would be of format 0.7something, but we hadn't settled on the 'something'.
pje has done some extensive thinking about these for the Python egg project. See: http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools#specifying-your-project-s-version http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/PkgResources#parsing-utilities I think pje's latest post on the issue, and the documents above, bring a new discussion item into picture: do we want to have version numbers that accurately reflect development versions between milestones? Currently we don't, but we have the additional information in the About Chandler menu (date and/or Subversion revision number in addition to milestone number). So, to be clear, do you want: 1) Fully descriptive version numbers or 2) Hybrid where version describes milestone and auxiliary info specifies dev version? If we want the version number to convey all of the information it is going to be a little more complicated than doing it without. Oh, there is also the question of do we want the version number to contain an svn revision number or not. Opinions? Should the version number contain a timestamp? Something I am not sure if Python eggs and pje's version parser deals with is the 'm1', ..., 'mn' syntax that has been proposed. I.e., does it compare 0.7, 0.7.1 and 0.7.m1 correctly etc. (0.7.m1 < 0.7 < 0.7.1)? Note that 'm1' is very close to '1', so I am not sure this would be buying us everything that we think we are buying. Other things that have been used and we have discussed where the a (or alpha) etc. I don't remember if we discussed dev (or dev1, dev2 etc.). Until I know for sure if we want 1) or 2) above I am not sure what I would propose. The floor is open for discussion. -- Heikki Toivonen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
