| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 06:47:19AM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote: >--- DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote: >>>So it would be now big deal to use the numbering scheme 1.1.y with >>>consecutive y for the releases and 1.1.(y+1)-YYYYMMDD for the next >>>snapshots in between. >> >>I would suggest 1.1.y-YYYYMMDD. I'd rather not even hint at a next >>release until we're there. > >I disagree. The snapshot should be incremented to the next release >number after a release. If you leave it the same as the release one >could assume that all snapshots after that release were compatible with >that release and it might not be so. Yup. This is sort of the way that linux does it. I am not going to keep the snapshots at the same revision as the net release. *I* would find the confusing. Also, I don't know what people mean when they say 1.1.y-YYYYMMDD. We don't have enough room in the utsname field for this. However, I have modified uname() so that the snapshot date is reported as the release date and an 'S' is added to the revision. I think that Corinna was just implying that we already have everything that has been requested, though. cgf
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |