"Dan Harkless" wrote:
> Howdy. I still feel very strongly that we should up the nmh version number
> in the CVS source just after releasing each tarball, so that the version
> numbers of the public releases really have an absolute meaning. Until now,
> someone could report a bug against 1.0.1 and someone else could say "I can't
> reproduce that bug" because they're running completely different versions of
> 1.0.1, at least one of them obtained via CVS.
>
> Therefore, I've upped the VERSION to 1.0.3. Unfortunately Doug didn't do
> this just after releasing the tarball, so there was a small window when
> someone could have gotten a different 1.0.2 than most end-users have, but
> hopefully no significant changes were made after 1.0.2 went public.
What if we called it 1.0.3-beta or something - otherwise we don't have
the concept of "released version" vs. "non-released version", even for
developer versions.
> I like the Linux kernel number versioning system -- even for public releases
> and odd for developer versions (which is a good mnemonic). Therefore, next
> time we release a tarball, it should be version 1.0.4 (and then the VERSION
> should be immediately upped to 1.0.5). Or it might be a higher version like
> 1.1.0; in any case, it should end with an even digit.
I've never been a fan of the internal vs. external release number idea.
If we have 1.0.2 being released then 1.0.4, people may wonder whatever
happened if 1.0.3 and so on...
My $AUS0.02.
Simon.
