Versioning

[Matthew Graham]

Hi,

On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Alberto Micol wrote:

>> "The document now states that there is an integer increment in the  
>> version number in the case where subsequent versions are not  
>> backward compatible. "
>> So, for example, the progression of VOSpace 2.0 would actually  
>> proceed as:
>>
>> VOSpace 2 (first WD)
>> VOSpace 3 (second WD)
>> VOSpace 4 (third WD)
>> VOSpace 5 (first PR)
>> VOSpace 6 (second PR)
>> VOSpace 7 (final PR)
>> VOSpace 8 (REC)
>
> My way to read that is that the integer increment happens
> for subsequent not backward compatible REC versions,
> not during the revision process WD->PR->REC.
>
> During the revision process only the date changes, not the version.
>
> That is, if a REC exists with version N.m, and a new version of that  
> standard
> is being discussed, which will bring to an accepted new Exec version  
> incompatible
> with version N, then such new WD must be numbered (N+1).0 --  
> otherwise N.(m+1) will suffice.
> The WD will then become PR without the need to change version number,
> but just only the date.
>
> Wrong?

Well, I posed the above scenario to the Standards WG and their  
response was that this was correct. My own preference would be along  
the lines you (and Doug) suggest but there needs to be an explicit  
clarification of this is the documentation then.

	Cheers,

	Matthew