version numbers
Tony Linde
ael at star.le.ac.uk
Wed Mar 10 01:16:15 PST 2004
Agreed. Well stated, Ray.
Tony.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-interop at eso.org [mailto:owner-interop at eso.org] On
> Behalf Of Ray Plante
> Sent: 09 March 2004 18:24
> To: interop at ivoa.net
> Subject: version numbers
>
> Hi VOers,
>
> Now and again I see someone asking about the logic behind a
> version number, wondering how vZ.Z.ZZ came after vX.X. I'm
> sure I've confused my fair share of people with my own
> choices. I would like to recommend that we practice the
> pattern typical of most revision control systems (that I am
> aware of), as in the following example of a sequence of version
> numbers:
>
> 0.1 // an initial pre-production draft version
> 0.2
> 0.2.1 // a minor revision on 0.2
> 0.2.2
> 0.4 // perhaps 0.3 never saw the light of day
> 0.8
> 0.9
> 0.10 // we're not ready for 1.0 yet
> 0.11
> 0.11.1 // further refinement
> 0.11.2
> 1.0 // yeah! ready for prime-time!
> 1.1 // revision on 1.0
> 2.0 // major revision over 1.x; applications may break.
>
> This is based on the following principles:
>
> o Each field between a period (.) is an integer. The
> version is not
> to be interpreted as a floating point number. That is 0.91 is 82
> revisions after 0.9.
>
> o When the first field is 0, the standard/app is a draft release
> with significant development or review still expected.
>
> o The third field is a branch in development. In our
> case, we should
> use this to mark minor changes (perhaps backward
> compatible) beyond
> the last two-field version.
>
> o An increment in the first field represents a major
> change; users will
> likely have to change their applications to be compliant
> with the new
> version.
>
> o Which field is incremented--that is, whether this is a
> minor or major
> change--is up to the authors.
>
> cheers,
> Ray
>
>
More information about the interop
mailing list