Version number

[Bruno Rino]

The rule is quite clear: 
http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/DocStd/Procedures-20040425.html#VersionNumbers
In short, a document can be promoted 1.0 WD -> 1.0 PR -> 1.0 REC as long 
as its contents do not change.

On 13/11/2008 16:57, Mark Taylor wrote:
> Following up my earlier post about the PR draft:
>
> I'm not quite sure what version number to attach to the SAMP document
> which goes forward to be PR and eventually REC (I have dodged this
> issue for now by just using a date string).  It would seem tidiest
> if the final recommendation was named SAMP 1.0.  However, the WD was
> 1.0, and the current PR draft differs from this, and it may yet change 
> further.
>
> The issue of IVOA recommendation-track document version numbers is rather
> vexed.  Depending on who you talk to, it may be possible to have
> a version 1.0 WD and a version 1.0 PR and a version 1.0 REC (or 
> several of them) which differ from each other.
> A proper resolution of this is properly TCG business, and is anyway 
> beyond the scope of this group.  Christophe has informally told me
> to do whatever I/we think is best, pending some improvements to the
> document submission processes.
>
> However, we will need at least to decide on the version number of the 
> eventual REC: should it be 1.0, or 1.1, or 1.0x where x is the number 
> of changes between now and then, or something different?
>
> I *think* I'm inclined to say call the REC 1.0 and fudge the version
> numbers between now and then.  Does anyone else have an opinion?
>
> By the way: I've just realised that this probably has an implication
> for the value assigned to the "samp.profile.version" key in sec 4.3
> of the document.
>
> Mark
>