Re: Updating release version to 22.1

[Kim F. Storm]

Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:17:30 +0100, Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:18:41 +0100, Jérôme Marant <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >> What's the rational for not using 22.0.x for development versions?
>> >> It would be so much simpler ...
>> 
>> Because it - IMO - is confusing.
>
> What, compared to all the other bizarro schemes being suggested here
> ("hey I know, let's make pre-releases _blue_, and real releases
> _green_!")?  You've got to be kidding... please say you're kidding...

Not really!

The problem with our _current_ scheme is that even though we seem to want to
postpone the decision about exactly what number the next release gets, it
is recorded _NUMEROUS_ places all over the sources and other files
(in total, I had to change 21.4 to 22.1 in more than 500 places).

I don't want us to get into that mess again -- so I want a scheme
where the next release number is _fixed_ from the start.

This is easily achieved by _always_ using MM.1 (MM = 22,23,24...)  for
releases from the trunk, and MM.N (N = 2,3,4...) for bugfixes from the
release branch (RC_MM_1).

Given that, it seems a little odd that the development version is
called something different from MM.1-something...

But ok, lets stick with 22.0.50 for now.


My primary concern is if some code tests specifically for MM.1 in some
way, e.g. "version >= MM.1" and the dev/pretest version is MM.0, then
we may not see a specific error until we update the version to MM.1
and release the software -- without EVER testing that it works
with the actual release number.  

Sadly code _does_ test version numbers!


-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk