[Gc] RE: GC version numbering

[Boehm, Hans]

I'm also fine with Andy's proposal.  In fact I was envisioning something like this in the slightly longer term.  The question is whether we should switch from 7.2 to 8.0.0 for a small bug fix.  My initial assumption was "no", but it may be worth it just to allow us to change version numbering cleanly.  I don't have a strong preference either way.

Hans

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Wingo [mailto:wingo at pobox.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:01 AM
> To: Ivan Maidanski
> Cc: Petter Urkedal; Boehm, Hans; gc at linux.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: [Gc] RE: GC version numbering
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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/