On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:14:46 -0400 James Laska <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd like to see the entire process handled by make targets to avoid > > inconsistent branch and tag names. I'm thinking things like ... > > 'make newversion' and 'make tag' etc... I'll experiment with that > > once the document is finalized. > > Maybe a dumb question ... the document explains the X.Y.Z (major, > minor, revision) versioning scheme. Right now, it only lists how to > increment minor# and revision#. Is there need for a major# at this > time? Should we collapse X.Y.Z into just X.Y?
I know that I'm not all that worried about what numbers we use for a versioning scheme and I'm pretty sure Kamil has said almost the same thing - as long as we're pretty consistent and the scheme makes sense, it doesn't matter a whole lot what the numbering scheme actually is. I imagine that the X was set to 0 in the docs out of convenience and habit but I'm fine with either 0.X.Y or dropping the 0 and moving to X.Y. Either way, it might not be a bad idea to update the docs to not specify 0 as the major or drop the major version number entirely. Tim
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ autoqa-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel
