Re: No calc in pretest?

[Jon Cast]

Miles Bader <address@hidden> wrote:
> Jon Cast <address@hidden> writes:

> > > It would perhaps be logical to use negative minor-minor version
> > > numbers.  I wonder if that would break anything.  We could try
> > > it.

> > I think this is a good idea.  The only question is what
> > minor/micro version number CVS versions should have under this
> > scheme---the minor number of the following version and a negative
> > micro number, or the minor number of the preceding version and a
> > high micro number.  Hmm.

> I assumed he meant the former, e.g. 21.4.-2.x would always be a CVS
> version and 21.4.-1.y would always be a prelease (or something).

This sounds reasonable.

> By the latter, I assume you meant e.g. 21.4.0.-x and having -X count
> `up towards 0'.  The disadvantage of that is you have to pick a very
> high X to avoid inadvertantly hitting 0 before you're ready...

No, by the latter I meant making the CVS preceding 21.5 21.3.50 and
making the pre-tests for 21.5 21.5.-10 (or some-such).  In other
words, should we change the version numbers for both CVS and
pre-tests, or just for pre-tests.

> -Miles

Jon Cast