[cvsnt] Re: Thoughts on version numbering

[Bo Berglund]

We use 4 places of version numbers:
<major>.<minor>.<patch>.<build>

<build> is autoincremented by the build process and is never reset, so
it alone can identify a single version of the exe file. The others are
maintained manually and are used as per their names.
This version number is also used by the installer to decide if a file
is 'older' or 'newer'.

/Bo


On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:03:06 GMT, tmh at nodomain.org (Tony Hoyle) wrote:

>I've been giving some thought to the version numbering system we have at the
>moment.
>
>Originally it was planned to track the Unix CVS builds (cvsnt started out just
>as a patch to Unix CVS) so the numbering system was based around that ie.
>cvs verson 1.11.1 cvsnt version 3.  However time marches on and that's no
>longer true.  The 'build' system has basically taken over any version
>numbering anyway.
>
>What I propose is that the numbering system is completerly revamped, so
>there's also some idea of 'stable' versioning too (I won't be maintaining too
>branches as I've tried that in the past and it doesn't scale, but there are
>definately points in the development where the product is more stable than
>others).
>
>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.
>
>I'm really just brainstorming at the moment...  any input would be welcome.
>
>Tony


/Bo
(Bo Berglund, developer in Sweden)