On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Ian Bennett wrote:
I updated via CVS and still see version 1.9.9. Is this right?? I would
have
expected to see a minor version increment for any change.
Historically we haven't been bumping it in-between stable releases.
When we do a stable release we bump the last number to an even
number, then immediately after the release we bump it up one for
development. At least it looks like we've been doing it that way
since 2006.
We have a few conflicting requirements:
*) The APRS scheme of three digits ("APX" in our case) and three
numbers for the version number in each APRS packet. This limits
us to three digits total. If we go to 1.10.0 or 1.9.10, there's
no place for the fourth digit unless we go to "APX191-0",
"APX191-1", etc, a potential conflict with earlier revisions for
the "-0" case.
*) Trying not to get to 2.0.0 'cuz that's historically where we were
going to start Xastir-2 or Xastir-NG.
*) The open-source numbering scheme: First number is the major
revision. Second number is minor revision, often with an odd
number for devel, even number for releases. Last number is
patch-level. We don't quite comply with this:
http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/Software-Release-Practice-HOWTO/index.html
--
Curt, WE7U. <http://www.eskimo.com/~archer>
APRS: Where it's at! <http://www.xastir.org>
Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math. - unknown
Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates. - WE7U.
The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
_______________________________________________
Xastir mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir
