Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Well, the "version 2" prefix is kind of already taken by Sascha Hauers alternative implementation.
Should we go for 2.x.x anyway?
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:47:22AM -0500, Ken Fuchs wrote:
May I suggest CC.YY.MM?
VERSION = <Century number> PATCHLEVEL = <Year number> SUBLEVEL = <Month number> EXTRAVERSION = <NULL> or <special purpose>
So this month's release number would become 20.08.08.
Scott Wood wrote:
Why the extra dot after the century? That looks like August 20th, 2008 in certain date formats.
All such date formats that list smaller units (days) before larger units (months or years) such that they don't sort properly are deprecated.
And no ability to release more than once a month?
The EXTRAVERSION preprocessor symbol can be defined to allow a new release every picosecond, or more often, if necessary.
Of course, we *could* base the version number on RFC 2550... :-)
To solve the Y10K, Y100K, Y1M, ... problems, the "CC" in "CC.YY.MM" shall be defined to be as long as necessary.
------
OK, reserving VERSION for <Century number> may not be such a good idea after all.
Here's another suggestion that most may agree with:
VERSION = <Year number = 2008..10**30-1> PATCHLEVEL = <Month number = 1..12> SUBLEVEL = <Day number = 1..31> EXTRAVERSION = <NULL> or <special purpose>
A release on the opening day of the Olympics would be:
2008.08.08
Sincerely,
Ken Fuchs