stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <>
Subject Re: x.y.z numbering and releases
Date Thu, 19 Jan 2006 04:45:54 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On January 18, 2006 5:30:04 PM -0700 Martin Sebor 
> <> wrote:
>> I don't think of the name of a file mentioned in emails as a release,
>> least of all when it refers to a transient file in someone's home
>> directory. Similarly, I don't consider an SVN branch to be an actual
>> release, even if its contents were identical to it. With this mindset
>> I can only see one potential effect of skipping versions on users --
>> that of confusion.
> One of the problems in working in open-source projects is that everyone 
> can see the release immediately.  Therefore, we don't have the ability 
> to 'take' a release back - once you tag it or announce it in any public 
> forum, it's gone.  By enforcing a 'cheap' version number policy, we 
> remove any confusion: were they using the '1.2.3' release from Jan 10 or 
> was that the '1.2.3' release from Jan 15?  Instead, we make it crystal 
> clear what the release was by only allowing that version to be used 
> once.  -- justin

I understand the motivation behind the policy and fully support
the goal of preventing the problem it is designed to address.

However, I believe that the issue can be just as effectively
dealt with by implementing the -rcN (or similar) suffix policy
that Bill mentioned in his first post, with the additional
(and IMO essential) advantage of preserving the well-established
meaning of the version number grounded in precisely defined
technical criteria.


View raw message