> On Nov 29, 2016, at 2:57 AM, René J.V. Bertin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday November 28 2016 17:25:39 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> That's correct and intentional. > > I also said that that version complied with practices I see elsewhere :) > >> It was changed to 2.3.99 after we created the 2.3 release branch, which was >> 2 years ago. After we create a 2.4 release branch, the version on master >> will be changed to 2.4.99. > > Then you have your answer in fact. When you bump the version in that script > you can use git-release or equivalent to create a 2.4.99 tag, and from there > on `git describe` would identify master as 2.4.99-<counter>-<shorthash> . > That'd be almost exactly what I'd like to see (though later rather than > sooner).
We don't want a x.x.99 tag. It wouldn't mean anything. x.x.99 means master. It doesn't mean any specific state of master. > Would you consider adding an additional level by 2.3.6 (= 2.3.99.6) so that > the master version keeps some form of synchronisation with the release > version? I don't think that it suggests master is based on 2.3.X, but it does > convey the message that 2.3.X contains things that were introduced into > master before 2.3.99.X. No, I would not consider adding such tags.
