On 7/15/10 12:54 PM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 07:15:38PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:24:05AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think that David's idea has some promise now. Create a new branch, with
>>>> a
>>>> version that's unique to this branch.
>>>
>>> \version "9.999.9" ?
>>
>> How is that unique to a particular branch?
>
> Simply because we're never going to have version 9.999.9 ? I
> mean, even when we start development for lilypond 10, we're never
> going to have 999 releases between lilypond 8 and 10. We could
> use 9.999.9 as a convention for "not a real version number".
>
> Yes, it's not as safe as adding letters to the version number, but
> OTOH I'm pretty certain that we could use 9.999.9 without any
> build-system-related problems. (hmm... actually, it's just
> possible that it wouldn't be happy with the leading 2. But
> something like 2.999.9 should be totally safe)
As a developer, I'm free to choose whatever I want. The special version is
only in my custom git branch and in patch reviews on Rietveld. Once it gets
pushed, it's got a real version number.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
