* Ged Haywood ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi there, > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Donald Greer wrote: > > > So, perhaps the release posted this morning would be "2.0.0"? > > and the devel release "2.1.0"? (or maybe "2.1.2023 -- 2.1.[4-digit
Ugh, please no Microsoftish version numbers. One increment per commit makes more sense imo. > I'd suggest a two digit minor version number, for example 2.01.2023 > rather than 2.1.2023, because then we don't have the stupidity of > version 2.2.2023 being older than 2.14.4096 (like Apache does it:). Um, 2.2.* is older than 2.14.* It's MAJOR.MINOR.<something>, not a decimal number. 2 is less than 14, hence it's older. > Using the odd=development even=production like the Linux kernel and > Perl systems is useful too. Well, we all know where Linux's development model gets it :P I prefer explicit tags; -stable, -current, -prerelease etc. Much nicer than an arbitrary choice of odd/vs even and "increment minor version loads to indicate prerelease". -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.aagh.net/ - What we wish, that we readily believe. -- Demosthenes _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
