Re: Topic: Versioning scheme and 1.0

Subject: Re: Topic: Versioning scheme and 1.0
From: WJCarpenter (bill-abisource@carpenter.ORG)
Date: Thu May 03 2001 - 13:33:09 CDT

dom> But in general, I'm in favor of this. Except that I'd like the
dom> next release to be "15" instead of "2". 2 seems too larval. My
dom> perception of Abi is that it "came of age" in the 0.7 series and

Instead of picking some number semi-randomly, perhaps we could compute
from history the number of milestone releases that AbiWord has had.
Then imagine that the first of those was called #1 and see where that
puts us for 0.7.14. Mathematical induction will lead us from there.

PS:- The integral release numbers predates the triple notation, at
least in my brain. It used to be that lots of people released
relatively small things as source code, and via patches. To keep the
world famous "patch" program from doing the wrong thing on your
behalf, things were marked with a "patchlevel", which was generally a
monotonically increasing integer (though I don't recall that there was
an actual requirement to do so). I believe it was in 1991 that I got
on that bandwagon <>, though
somewhere along the way I started calling things "version" instead of
"patchlevel" because "patch" and "patchlevel" have unwarranted
negative connotations.

bill@carpenter.ORG (WJCarpenter)    PGP 0x91865119
38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 25    73 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F3

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat May 26 2001 - 03:51:01 CDT