"Dan Harkless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > so bouncing between even & odd release numbers over time seems weird.
>
> There's no bouncing between them. People with FTP access get the
> even-numbered releases. People with CVS access can get the odd-numbered
> developer versions in between as well.
I guess I was thinking more of the Linux releases...don't they do
something like have 1.1.x be various "development" versions with 1.0.x
being "release" versions? Or something like that?
> > And, bumping the version number to 1.0.3 before 1.0.3 is released seems
> > weird, but the number should always change as a new release is put out.
> > Maybe that means I'd prefer having X.Y.Z where X is major version, Y is
> > minor version and Z is development-in-progress version. So, public
> > releases would've been 1.0.0, 1.1.0, 1.2.0. And instead of bumping from
> > 1.0.2 to 1.0.3 on this public release, I would've released 1.2.0,
>
> Not 1.1.0?
OK...I was thinking of that number if the same numbering scheme had
been followed from the start (i.e. 1.0.0, 1.1.0, 1.2.0 - 1.2.0
would've been the 3rd "released" version along the 1.x line). OK..so,
I was a bit obtuse there.
> > then bumped to 1.2.1 for the next chunk of development.
>
> That's fine, but there'd really never be a reason to increment Z past 1, so
> why give it the status of a full digit? You can communicate the same
> information more concisely (and without loss of version number resolution)
> with an even/odd convention (or a "beta" string).
I guess I was misinterpreting you then - I was thinking that each code
line ("release" or "current"/"development"/"whatever") would be
parallel number lines (1.N.x vs 1.M.x where N is even and M is odd),
but that doesn't actually fit what you were saying.
I could see cases where you might want to have multiple "development" version
numbers to mark some sort of major change without releasing it (ie.
1.0.3 and 1.0.4 could both be internal version numbers). But, if the
only reason to change the version number is a transition between
"release" and "development" states, then I agree with you.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
