On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:24:37 -0700 Wes wrote:
WH> >>>>> On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:02:28 +0100, Dave Shield
WH>
WH> Dave> R 5.1.1
WH> Dave> C 5.1.1+cvs 2004/06/01
WH>
WH> I don't think the reported version number as released by the tools
WH> should have anything other than things parsable by .s. [...]
WH> IE: my preference would be to take the current version just released
WH> and auto-append a .cvs to the end. For new branches and the main
WH> line, we should tag it as version.pre0 or version.notyet0 or some
WH> other tag.
I think we probably shouldn't use pre0, since we use preN for release tags.
How about'sera'(as in'que sera sera')?;-) I think it fits. 5.2.0.sera(oops,
sorry, 5.2.sera)
5.2.sera -> 5.2.pre1 -> 5.2
+ new branch: 5.2.1.sera -> 5.2.1.pre1 ...
+ new branch: 5.3.sera ...
--
Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie <http://www.net-snmp.org/>
<irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp>
Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders>
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -
digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,
unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
