Jens Nerche wrote: > Ramon van Handel wrote: > >I'll clean up this weekend ... I'll fix this this weekend [and so on] > Fine! OK, I'll wait for your patch then. > >Okay, I forgot to ask about this one last time --- > >I added VERSION when I cleaned up user.c (once again ;)), > >but we never actually did discuss our versioning conventions. > >We should think about this one... > Perhaps we could take a proven example like the linux kernel. > The patches were collected (in CVS repository) and from time to > time takes someone the sources, rolls a tarball, makes a patch > against the last version and puts it with some comments on a web page. Well, IMO at the current stage, formal version numbering is probably not very useful. I'd suggest a scheme similar to that employed by Wine: keep the current version in CVS, but create from time to time (every two weeks or so) a snapshot in the form of a tarball. Those could simply by numbered by date. Real version numbers can then be introduced as soon as we have something that is actually useable for any practical purpose (by non-developers) ... In any case, I'd then create CVS tags to define the snapshots; this means that the snapshot can be easily extracted using 'cvs export', and diffs relative to a shapshot can be created using cvs. Bye, Ulrich -- Ulrich Weigand, IMMD 1, Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg, Martensstr. 3, D-91058 Erlangen, Phone: +49 9131 85-27688
