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
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 09:57:29 -0400
To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Next net release will be 1.1.3
Message-ID: <20000523095729.A20539@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
References: <20000523134719 DOT 6433 DOT qmail AT web111 DOT yahoomail DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <20000523134719.6433.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Tue, May 23, 2000 at 06:47:19AM -0700

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