RE: version numbering and tarball format (was Re: [Lynx-dev] unpackeddirectory name)

[Larson, Timothy E.]

Thorsten Glaser <> wrote:
> I'd be all in favour of calling the next release 3.00 and then going
> on from there numerically (3.01, 3.02, etc.) with only one decimal dot
> in the version number ☺  

Egads, no.  That system is ambiguous, and usually means I have to make my brain 
reparse the string as 3.0.1, 3.0.2, etc.  Keep it Major.Minor.Patch please!

> Otherwise, incrementing 0.0.1 per what is a “dev” version now, and
> 0.1.* per what is a “release” version now sounds good to me too. I
> used to be irritated at first by the extra dot before the dev suf- fix
> as well, so I'd recommend lynx-X.Y.Z.tar.{Z,gz} extracting in- to a
> lynx-X.Y.Z/ directory.   

I understand the usage of a 4th level for dev/beta/prerelease versioning.  I 
guess I'd like to understand TD's definitions for what constitutes a major or 
minor revision, since all I've seen since I've been following this have been 
patch level releases.  Will we ever see a 2.9 or 2.10, or a 3.0?


Thanks,
Tim

-- 
Tim Larson        AMT2 Unix Systems Administrator
    InterCall, a division of West Corporation

               Eschew obfuscation!

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature