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.
Perhaps to avoid possible future muddling of the CVS versioning, CVSNT versioning should start at something much higher than 2. Perhaps jumping to 10.x? Or perhaps 4.x to hint at NT4? Imagine a scenario where in the next few years, Subversion prompts the CVS team to add significant enough features to CVS for the team to declare it a 2.0. Don't know how likely this is, but it shouldn't be ruled out. Though I suppose CVSNT might be seen as a next generation of CVS and the 2.x nomenclature might be appropriate...? __________ I should have known better than to trust the logic of a half-sized thermocapsulary dehousing assister... > -----Original Message----- > From: John Peacock [mailto:jpeacock at rowman.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:45 AM > To: cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook > Subject: [cvsnt] Re: Thoughts on version numbering > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > cvsnt mailing list > cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook > http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt https://www.march-hare.com/cvspro/en.asp#downcvs >