"H. S. Teoh" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:59:28PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "H. S. Teoh" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:39:54AM -0800, Walter Bright wrote: >> >> On 3/10/2012 11:02 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote: >> >> >Speaking of which, how's our progress on that front? What are the >> >> >major roadblocks still facing us? >> >> >> >> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED >> > >> > Looks quite promising to me. Can we expect dmd 2.060 Real Soon Now(tm)? >> > :-) >> > >> >> No. Unfortnately, 2.059 will have to come first. ;) > [...] > > Argh! I didn't realize dmd bumped its version in git immediately after a > release, rather than before. At my day job, we do it the other way round > (make a bunch of changes, test it, then bump the version once we decide > it's ready to ship). >
I honestly don't like it either way. For my stuff, I bump it just before *and* just after a release. If you see something of mine with a version like "vX.Y", then it's a release version. If it's "vX.Y.1" than it's a development snapshot that could be anywhere between the next and previous "vX.Y". For instance, v0.5.1 would be a dev snapshot that could be anywhere between the v0.5 and v0.6 releases. Once I reach v1.0, then whenever I need to do a "vX.Y.Z" release, the 'Z' part will always been an even number for releases and odd for dev snapshots (unless I decide to just add an extra fourth number instead). (Prior to a v1.0, I don't think there's much point in bothering with a full "vX.Y.Z": just bump the Y since, by definition, you can always expect breaking changes prior to v1.0) I think it's terrible for dev and release versions to share the same version number.
