Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
Tony Hoyle wrote: > I can either start again 1.0 or leapfrog to 2.0. I'd rather avoid numbers > like 1.12 to minimise crossover with the Unix CVS version numbers. I suggest > something like <major release>.<stable version>.<patchlevel> and doing away > with build numbers altogerther. The idea is if a particular version is > declare 'stable' (like the late 57 builds or as I hope the latest build is) I > up the stable version and reset the patchlevel, so that everyone knows that > that's the latest 'safe' install. For this to happen to a release it should > have no major or critical bugs filed against it for at least a week after > release. > You can also consider the <major release>.<minor release>.<patchlevel> and odd=devel, even=release model that Perl follows now. By this scheme, the next stable release should be 2.0 and the devel stream begins immediately at 2.1 (where patchlevel releases are incremented seperately). When you get to the point where the devel version is stable enough to release, it becomes 2.2 and 2.3 immediately starts as the devel stream. And I would _not_ suggest doing anything except leapfrogging over the existing CVS version scheme. John