On 11/25/2013 10:28 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Here's the full comment:
The version string has one of the forms:
X.Y
X.Y.Z Z != 0
X.Y.Z.W W != 0
where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999. Y>=90 means that this is
working towards {X+1}.0, and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
{X+1}.0; Z>=900 means working towards X.{Y+1}, and X.Y.Z as an
alpha release.
Then intent is that when Z and W are 0, the string form of the version
number is just X.Y, not X.Y.Z.W.
How about this clarification?
... and X.Y (i.e., Z=0 and W=0, so Z and W are
omitted from the string form) ...
That's not the part that needs clarifying. I think that fact that the
string form drops final zeros is clear from lines 2-4.
The part that needs clarifying is how to choose the version number for
the alpha releases leading up to version {X+1}.0. (Really, how to choose
alpha version numbers in general, since I've had similar problems in the
past.) From this statement, "X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
{X+1}.0" (Y>=90 already stated), I would expect that 5.91 would be a
fine alpha version number for 6.0. Is it? If not, what should the alpha
version number be?
I agree that "5.91" is the right alpha-version string, assuming that
it's intended as an "alpha" in the sense of our release rules (as
opposed to a "release candidate", which has a non-zero W).
The problem with the release branch currently is that "5.91.0.0" is
not a valid version string, and so
#define MZSCHEME_VERSION "5.91.0.0"
creates trouble, right?
OH! I didn't realize that was the problem, because I knew not to do
that, but apparently I did it anyway. Sorry about that. I just pushed a fix.
Ryan
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
