Re: need advice on convention for version numbering!

On 4/4/06, Man-Chi Leung <manchi.leung@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) from subversion source tree, I also observed that it was evolving
> from 1.0.x -> 1.1.x ->1.2.x -> 1.3.x , etc

This is pretty consistent with most Open Source software, and quite a
bit of commercial software for finished releases. The Linux kernel
used to be one of the best examples of carefully-considered version
numbering using this scheme, but this has slid in recent years.

> 2) Eclipse community is using a term "Milestone". it was from 2.x M1 -
> > M2 ... -> M6 -> 3.x , etc

These are releases made on the path to a new version. 2.x M1 was
"based on version 2, milestone 1 on the path to 3.0". Milestone
releases are typically not "production" releases, but rather
significant checkpoints in the development process.

> 3) some others use a term "Release Candidate(RC)" , for example, 1.x
> rc1 , rc2 ... rc6 -> 2.x release , etc.

Again, these are not "final releases", these are versions released by
the project team to say "we think this is a solid build. If it passes
the ultimate, final testing, we'll label it the final release."
Subversion makes RC builds before a final release (I think there were
5 RCs before 1.3 was releaseD).

> I am very puzzled on which convention to adapt and practise. any
> expert can help?

These are 3 different conventions for communicating three different
"states" of the software.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Apr 4 14:28:12 2006