> > If there is (I don't know, > > sorry) a currently mantained numbering scheme, we could use it, > > otherwise it could be used the v2 numbering until v3 is under > > development only. > > There is a numbering scheme, best let Noel of Serge explain it.. > my understanding is is.. > current HEAD is v3, working towards release v3.0, first alpha > will be 3.0a1, first release candidate will be 3.0rc1 > first released version will be 3.0.0 > Then now I would put @version 3.0.0, unless the source is (again now) totally shared with @version 2.2.0; in the latter case it should be 2.2.0.
> Current stable is v2, currently v2.2, first alpha would be 2.2a1 > first release candidate 2.2rc1 > Small fixes, eg bugfix, might be released as 2.2.1, larger > changes would result in 2.3 > > > > I think that all this could be a convention that everyone could > > follow, because IMHO it is useful for understanding the evolution > > of the code, and very simple to implement: just a "copy and > > paste". What do you think? Is there a better way of doing it? Is > > it worth? > > I'm not sure that "@version 2.2.0" matching the release version > makes much sense, because it means we'd have to change it for no > reason when the version changes. > "@version 2.2.0" matching the release version means in javadoc "*last changed* in version 2.2.0", so we do *not* need to change it for no reason when the version changes. > Otherwise I think its a reasonable idea. > Vincenzo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
