[Gc] RE: GC version numbering

Petter Urkedal urkedal at nbi.dk
Tue May 22 09:12:10 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-22, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Tue 22 May 2012 10:18, Ivan Maidanski <ivmai at mail.ru> writes:
> 
> > I add new tag after changing version in configure.
> > To me it's not a problem to modify a couple of files bumping the version - the problem is to decide when we should do it and what numbers should use.
> >
> > Again back to gc7.2, let's finally use version name "gc-7.2b" (seems to be suitable for all parties), right?
> 
> This would be fine.
> 
> Not to bikeshed, but let me float one more idea:
> 
>   M.N.O is stable if N is even, and unstable otherwise
> 
>   O increments on each release
> 
> It's easy and conventional -- which is really what these releases are
> about: communicating the state of your library with the world.  In that
> regard, the more conventional, the better.

I agree that the numeric MAJOR.MINOR.PATCHLEVEL is what seems most
familiar to me, though I don't see a problem using a letter for the
patchlevel either.  My comment about sorting is not an issue as the
schemes are not mixed, so I think package systems can use the either
scheme unchanged.

Using odd/even for stable/unstable may have some implications for the
development process, so it may not be suitable for any project, but if
used:  I suspect the first minor series (X.0.Z) would usually be
unstable, so unless there is precedence, it may be most convenient if
the odd minor versions are stable.

> If you think this is a good idea, then one way to switch to it would be
> to skip 7.2 and 7.3 altogether.
> 
> One way to change to this strategy would be to make the following
> substitutions:
> 
>   7.2 -> 8.0.0
>   7.2b -> 8.0.1
> 
>   7.3alphaN -> 8.1.N
>   7.4 -> 8.2
> 
> Again, I don't mean to delay things.  The proposal you gave is fine with
> me.  But I do think the changes I propose would be better and easy to
> make at this point.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> Andy
> -- 
> http://wingolog.org/


More information about the Gc mailing list