Re: dot five-o series versions - GDB 6.2.50

["Theodore A. Roth" <troth@openavr.org>]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Ref: http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/translation/HTML/maintainers.html
>
> The translators are looking for a versioning schema that makes it easy
> to undersand how two versions relate to each other.  Unfortunatly, GDB's
> current versioning doesn't do this.  Without knowing the policy, it's
> hard to know whats going on with:
>
> 	2004-09-03
> 	6.2_2004-09_03
>
> consequently, I'd like to propose that things be changed to the following:
>
> M.N.5x:
> Indicate the mainline.  It's half way between releases -> .50.
> Ex 6.2.50, 6.2.50_2004-09-03
>
> M.N.9x:
> Indicate pre release versions drawn from the branch.
>
> M.N / M.N.O:
> The release.
>
> This leads to the sequence:
>
> 6.2.50_2004-09-03
> 6.2.50_2004-09-04
> ...
>      <branch> -----------> <mainline>
> 6.2.90_2004-10-05     6.3.50_2004-10-05
> 6.2.91                6.3.50_2004-10-06
> ...                   ...
> 6.2.91_2004-10-10     6.3.50_2004-10-10
> ...                   ...
> 6.3 <release>         6.3.50_2004-10-11
> ...                   ...
> 6.3_2004-10-12        6.3.50_2004-10-12
> ...                   ...
> 6.3.1 <release>       6.3.50_2004-10-13
> ...                   ...
> <close>               ...
>                        ...
>                             <branch> ----------> <mainline>
>                        6.2.90_2004-10-05     6.3.50_2004-10-05
>                        6.2.91                6.3.50_2004-10-06
>                        ...                   ...
>                        6.2.91_2004-10-10     6.3.50_2004-10-10
>                        ...                   ...
>                        6.3 <release>         6.3.50_2004-10-11
>                        ...                   ...
>                        6.3_2004-10-12        6.3.50_2004-10-12
>                        ...                   ...
>                        6.3.1 <release>       6.3.50_2004-10-13
>                        ...                   ...
>                        <close>               ...
>                                              ...
>
> comment!

For the projects that I maintain, I found that versioning releases with
M.N.P and then tacking on the date for anything from cvs works great and
there is no ambiguity with where a version is coming from. Also if the
version is purely numeric, it makes life a little easier for package
maintainers since there is always a linear progression into the future.

For example,

   6.3.0           <release>
   6.3.0.20041012  <cvs-6.3-branch>
   6.3.1           <release>

   6.3.50.20041012 <cvs-mainline>

   6.3.90.20041012 <cvs-6.4-branch pre-release>

Of course, once 6.4 is branched (i.e. 6.3.90.xxxx is started), then
mainline would need to go to 6.4.50.xxxx.

Anyways, having something other than just the date for the verion of
mainline would be nice.

---
Ted Roth
PGP Key ID: 0x18F846E9
Jabber ID: troth@jabber.org