Hi!
3-Ноя-2006 10:07 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Riebisch) wrote to
[email protected]:
>> Using 2-digit subversions ("1.01") looks too similar to "1.0.1" kind of
>> naming. I'd rather we reserve those numbers for bug-fix releases that
>> don't add any new functionality.
RR> I dislike such debates so much, that I use DD-MMM-YYYY for all my
RR> projects. ;-)
1. To eliminate confusing (both human DD/MM-MM/DD and machine sorting,
better place year before).
2. Full date is too wide, you may encode it to something shorter. Example:
1.6AR mean "version 1, 2006-10-27". There even exist more compact
encoding schemes, but they assume that not each day may be encoded.
3. Date-based numbering, imho, is more sensible, than deep numbering, but
this applicable only for centralized management (when someone decises
when release and which date encode) and/or self-contained program (where
all components, if present, are not independent). For example, kernel may
use date-based numbering, FreeDOS package (imho) - not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
