Chris Cannam wrote: (Did I mention I'm really bad at reading this list often? Sigh.)
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >> I realize this is a little (ok, a lot) late, but: >> - most tools can sort '10' after '9' > > The problem is not just tools, but also people. I have had to respond > to enough queries of the form "the README says I need JACK 0.77 and > liblo 0.7, but my distro only seems to have JACK 0.101 and liblo 0.23 > and I can't find more recent versions anywhere" to know that any > developer who thinks that it's reasonable to follow "0.9" with "0.10" > is in need of a good slap. > > Yes, I know that's a lot of developers. We may have to hire a lot of > people to slap them all. Or maybe we need better elementary school teachers :-). 10 comes after 9. (And in the real world, it isn't always practical to bump the next level of version when you hit 9. If version 0.9 is nowhere near "1.0", and neither is the next version, calling it thus really isn't appropriate if the version number is to mean anything.) > It's not quite clear to me from your email exactly what you > think the problem is, for packagers. Bah. I forget now :-). (I'd point out, however, that -beta/etc aren't necessarily friendly, as they can be considered "newer" than releases. Much software seems to use .50+ for beta (or some other high, semi-arbitrary starting point) and -90+ for release candidate. >> For alpha/beta/rc... >> >> 1.99.0 (2.0 alpha 1) >> 1.99.50 (2.0 beta 1) >> 1.99.900 (2.0 rc 1) >> 2.0.50 (2.1 beta 1) > > Uh, but if the next release after 1.9 was 1.10, then 1.99 must be the > 99th release of the 1.x series...? And 1.99.50 is the 50th beta > release? Be consistent! Ah... no, it's tradition to jump to a large number when starting a release cycle. Pre-releases use the will-be number minus one. > my point is that there are inconsistencies all over the place Well, I fail to see what's inconsistent in the above :-). It's also the scheme used by KDE, and I think GNU (not sure if GNU uses the same beta/RC numbering style, but they surely use 1.9 -> 1.10). I guess the real point is you're better off picking a well-known system than inventing a new one (which may or may not be understood correctly by package managers). I don't know too many that have leading zeros in dotted versions. (I've seen some date-like versions, so I suppose those must be handled tolerably, but I'd ask some packagers about an '09.06'-like system. Or use '2009' :-), which makes it obvious it's a date and that 2010.01 probably isn't a major change from 2009.12. Aaaaaaand you're going to add a third number when needed, yes?) Even better idea; has anyone consulted a distro's -devel list? It wouldn't hurt to ask around what is a good numbering scheme. -- Matthew ENOWIT: .sig file for this machine not set up yet ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
