----- Gedare Bloom <ged...@gwu.edu> schrieb: > Extrapolating a bit, we would have: > 4.11.0 release series (following old conventions) > 5.0 next development version, no release > 5.1 next release, with 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 as subsequent bugfix (maintenance) > releases > 6.0 next development version after 5.0 > 6.1 next release after 5.1, with 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 as before? > > The alternate scheme I have seen suggested is more convoluted, and it > involves using even numbers for development versions, and odd numbers > for releases. In this scheme we would have: > 5.0 next development version, no release > 5.1 next release, with 5.2 as the development version of the bugfix > branch, and 5.3 as the bugfix release. > 6.0 is development version after 5.0. > 6.1 next release, with 6.3, 6.5, etc as bug fix. > > The advantage of this scheme is that all development versions have a > clear label. The question boils down to do we care to provide > development version numbers of maintenance branches?
I am fine with this scheme. So, there is basically a single Y.ODD commit for the release, and then a Y.ODD+1 commit to change the number for the next development cycle. I think its nice if we can go from three numbers X.Y.Z to just two. It should be clear for the user which version corresponds to a release, and what is work in progress. > > Either scheme fits pretty well with RTEMS release cycle I think. Even > if we can get down to one release per year, the numbers won't grow > terribly fast. One release per year would be nice. -- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 E-Mail : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de PGP : Public key available on request. Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
