John,I'll just ignore that part of that directed at me. Yep we *should* use a fixed version number. Thats part of the reason we moved to a common assemblyinfo.cs file in the first place isn't it ?
We should .. euhm .. could ... (never say should, if there's a slight chance that Ian is gonna read the mail .. LOL) also move to a fixed version number for releases, now that all assemblies are built using a common assemblyinfo.cs file.
I'll set a fixed version in src/CommonAssemblyInfo.cs in a moment (eg. 0.8.3.05000) . What you create the release version, you could actually increase the revision number a little (eg. 0.8.3.05010). That will allow us to identify the version that a user is running. The release notes could then also mention the complete version number somehow, so we have a history of releases and their matching version numbers.
After you've created the release, you could increase both the build number and the revision number (eg. 0.8.4.05020). That will make it clear we're in a pre-0.8.4 stage then ...
Well, ofcourse this is just my opinion. Ian, what do you suggest ? "should" we do this ?
yep we *should* - it would be nice to have that build number auto-increment as part of the nightly build as well.
Ian
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
