Ok I give in! > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Benett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 16 December 2002 10:23 > To: James Developers List > Subject: Re: Version numbers > > > Aaron Knauf wrote: > > > > > > > Danny Angus wrote: > > > >>> This I don't agree with. > >> > >> > >> > >> You're right, and on re-reading I should've said.. it should be > >> 2.1.1, as we've been using 2.1.1 from cvs, and this is considered to > >> be the release cvs is working towards. > >> > >> There is a strict rule that numbers *MUST* increment, we've had this > >> dicsussion before and consider that cvs version number is the release > >> we are working towards. > > > > > By accident this happens to be 2.1.1 not 2.0.0, and I think we are > > stuck with it. > > > > The CVS tag *MUST* increment. The tag must also reflect the > > "marketing" version. > > I agree with Aaron. Its the tag that needs to be changed not the number. > Also, it would be very confusing to have the cvs tag different from the > 'name' tag. > > > > > I do *NOT* agree that the tag /should/ be 2.1.1! As mentioned > > previously in this thread, the tags up until now should have been > > named 2.1b1, 2.1rc1, etc. If "by accident" the current tag is 2.1.0, > > then that is bad management. However, if we are stuck with bad > > management, then the prime directive must apply - the version number > > must increment. > > > >> > >> Our announcement can be that we are releasing version 2 or 2.1, as > >> long as the tag and filenames are 2.1.1. > > > > > > Absolutely not! Everywhere I go I find myself re-vamping the > > build/release management process. I all cases, the CVS tag *MUST* be > > kept in sync with the public release version. If not, keeping track > > of which release matches which version becomes a nightmare! The use > > of b1, b2, rc1, rc2, etc is a the only way I have found to achieve this. > > > Agree. Version 2 was released ages ago - called 2.0 > What is in cvs is a major release so it should be 2.1. If we have > really mucked up the numbering somewhere then we should call it 2.2 - > but not 2.1.1 or 2.1.0. The third number should only be for bugfixes or > really minor additional functionality. > > Charles > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
