> 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?
I didn't document it because I suppose we won't need it for a long time :) Essentially the process for incrementing major number is the same as for minor number (we will create a new branch 'release-1.0', 'release-2.0', etc). I can amend the documentation if you want. > Should > we collapse X.Y.Z into just X.Y? I like to use simpler versioning schemes for end-user applications. Pidgin 1, Pidgin 2, Pidgin 3, Pidgin 3.1 (bugfix) would work for me. OTOH for libraries and frameworks I think it's good to provide hints of breaking compatibility. My idea for AutoQA would be: 1. incrementing major number for API changes (when all users have to re-write their custom tests; of course we don't support that yet) 2. incrementing minor number for any feature additions 3. incrementing revision number for bugfix releases (no new features) _______________________________________________ autoqa-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel
