Re: Updating release version to 22.1

[storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)]

Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:18:41 +0100, Jérôme Marant <jmarant@freefr> wrote:
>> What's the rational for not using 22.0.x for development versions?
>> It would be so much simpler ...

Because it - IMO - is confusing.

Right now (or two days ago) we had released 21.3 and were working on
the trunk towards a release 21.4.

But the version on the trunk is numbered 21.3.50

Typically, the user who built 21.3 has a version called 21.3.1 or 21.3.2
which is pretty close to 21.3.50

But if we could agree that we always release major versions from the
trunk and each major release gets a new major number 22.1, 23.1, etc,
I see no problem using 22.0.0, 23.0.0, etc as development versions,
ans 22.0.1, 22.0.2, etc for the pretests.

Bug fixes would be released from branches, and be named 22.2, 22.3, etc.

Looking at past history, this wont cause major number inflation -- 
if lucky, we will release 30.1 in 2030 which isn't too bad :-)

That is indeed a simple scheme which I would support.

So Richard, if we could agree that major releasees from the trunk
always gets a new major number, we will get a simple numbering scheme
without the risk of accidentally using a "reserved" release number as
you just did.

It would be MUCH LESS HASSLE for future work if we implemented this
scheme right away.


I'll wait until tomorrow until I install my changes for 22.1 (or 22.0.0)

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk