Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:50:13 -0400
Message-Id: <200005222150.RAA31092@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
In-reply-to: <20000522172249.A10159@cygnus.com> (message from Chris Faylor on
	Mon, 22 May 2000 17:22:49 -0400)
Subject: Re: Next net release will be 1.1.3
References:  <20000522172249 DOT A10159 AT cygnus DOT com>


> It makes sense to "increment by two" for each net release.  This means
> that if someone downloads a snapshot (which will be something like
> 1.1.2, 1.1.4, etc.) they'll be able to upload to 1.1.3, 1.1.5, etc.

Is this just to avoid someone downloading a snapshot and being
confused about what version it is?  I'd rather somehow tag the
snapshots as being snapshots (i.e. version is "1.1.1+20000522" rather
than just "1.1.1"), not wasting a version number on them.

I suspect people will get confused if the next release isn't 1.1.2.  I
think the version number in the sources should be changed to reflect a
real release, which means we can't just repackage snapshots any more.
More work for us, but it seems like the right thing to do.

I could write a perl scrip that stripped off a "-snapshot" suffix if
that's all it takes.

> The only slight inconsistency in this plan is that it is the opposite of
> the "stable releases are even, beta net releases are odd".  Since it's
> likely that few people besides DJ and I are aware of this even/odd
> relationship, I'm wondering if this is a big deal.

It's the middle number that counts, not the last number.  1.1.* are
all "odd" for that purpose; the next CD-ROM releases will be 1.2.*