version numbers

[Marco C. Leoni]

Hi Ray,
    the "simplification" of version numbering came from some thoughts 
about document process:
- do we really need 10000 versions in between ver. 0.1 and the first 
published WD (i.e. ver. 1.0)?
- the documents process does not take into account the xml files et 
similia: they are "supplementary resources" that means you can follow 
your preferred numbering schema (CVS, RCS, VSS, etc.).


Cheers,
    Marco




Ray Plante wrote:

>Hi Bob, Markus, Marco,
>
>I know I should have said something earlier, so feel free to say, "it's 
>too late to change it."
>
>Thanks for the acknowledgement in the Guidelines Note regarding version 
>numbers; however, you modified my suggestion in toward a direction I was 
>trying to get away from.  The convention of having 0.21 come between 0.2 
>and 0.22 has a real problem: you only get ten revisions of a particular 
>level.  What comes after 0.99 if you are not ready for 1.0?  0.991?  Or 
>are you out of luck?  The result is that you no longer have a sense of how 
>major a change the revision is.
>
>The point of *my* saying "fields on either side of the period (.) are 
>integers" is to say that 3 comes between 2 and 4, and 21 come between 20 
>and 22.  All increments between a set of periods are considered the same 
>level of change.  
>
>This is how RCS, CVS, and probably most other revision control systems 
>work.  
>
>cheers,
>Ray
>