[cvsnt] Re: Thoughts on version numbering

[John Peacock]

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