On 28/07/2015 6:01 am, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > ----- 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. >
https://devel.rtems.org/wiki/Developer/Release#RTEMSReleaseNumberingandNaming Amar ? >> >> 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. > We may need more flexibility. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
