Version numbering

[Robert Hanisch]

I don't quite understand all the excitement about version numbers.  We
adopted a scheme for this several years ago that is simple and sufficient.
I don't think it matters particularly if different WGs assign version
numbers differently, as long as the general structure as already documented
is used.

There is no special meaning to 0.9 or 0.99 as opposed to a simple
progression.  The comments in the document are suggestive only.

A WD1.0, PR1.0, and REC1.0 can all be identical (and generally are) save for
the boilerplate text at the beginning that identifies the status of the
document.

Let's put our collective energy into the content of the documents themselves
rather than arguing about version numbers.

Bob

On 6/24/08 11:23 AM, "Bruno Rino" <brino at eso.org> wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> On 24/06/2008 12:16, Norman Gray wrote:
>> In fact the document is self-contradictory, since it says in section
>> 5, "The version numbering scheme for [...] Recommendations follows the
>> same pattern[...], beginning with version 1.0: '1.0  // first formal
>> release of the document at this level", but then almost immediately
>> says "PR V2.1 becomes REC V2.1".
> I don't see any contradiction, as long as all the text is included: "The
> version numbering scheme for formal Working Drafts, Proposed
> Recommendations, and Recommendations follows the same pattern as shown
> above, beginning with version 1.0: '1.0  // first formal release of the
> document at this level"
> 
> That being said, I'd agree that "PR V2.1 becomes REC V2.1" is confusing,
> although its meaning is well intended: the content of the document
> remains the same, it's only thes maturity status that changes. Hence I
> second your proposal of including the maturity status in the version
> number, making it something like "PR-2.1" and "REC-2.1". But I don't
> support the "PR-20080301" version number, mostly because it breaks all
> the existing document numbers.
> 
> Bruno