The idea sounds good but should we require a date in the version. I believe the month and year should suffice. Even if we were to make more than one release in a month the major and minor versions should hold good.
Just my thoughts Thanks - Balaji On Feb 17, 2016 11:31 PM, "Jafar Al-Gharaibeh" <[email protected]> wrote: > I like the idea. > This should work as long as users do not read too much into YYYYMMDD > thinking of it as a build date rather than a sub minor version with actual > fixes/changes in the sources, but probably that is unlikely. > > --Jafar > > On 2/16/2016 7:28 PM, Donald Sharp wrote: > > In today's Monthly meeting we briefly discussed how we would like to > version Quagga going forward. Two proposals were put forward, a date based > version string or a Major.Minor.Bug version string. I'd like to propose > that we combine the two of them together and get this: > > Major.Minor.YYYYMMDD > > Major = Major restructuring/Feature added to the system, VRF comes to mind. > Minor = Minor restructuring/Feature added to the system. The MTR code > changes or the zebra refactoring that has been going on comes to mind. > YYYYMMDD = > YYYY - The Year of the release > MM - The Month of the release > DD - The Day of the month of the release > > In the unlikely event we need to release a bug fix on the same date add > something like a -1 to the end, or wait till tommorrow. > > donald > > > _______________________________________________ > Quagga-dev mailing > [email protected]https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Quagga-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev >
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
