On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 07:10:34PM +0200, fvwm-workers wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 04:44:58PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > > On 04 Sep 2002 16:01:51 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > > > > Actually, it should *really* be everywhere where a user might see it: > > > > > > - configure summary > > > - man page > > > - fvwm --version > > > - fvwm-config > > > - tarball name > > > - ... > > > > Actually, it should not be anywhere beside some human readable texts > > and only because you want to give a user some indication. > > If we add the _cvs suffix, we may just add _final, _stable, _cvsstable, > > _cvs_20020904. But is the version string the right place for this? > > >From the technical point of view, all final versions are tagged. > > If we don't tag 2.5.4_cvs and it will just eventually become 2.5.4, > > there is no need of such version, it only confises package managers. > > > > You want to use a version as an indicator, this may work, and this is not > > unacceptable, but there are reasons why I prefer not to do this. I prefer, > > instead, to print a human readable suffix " (cvs)" or " (cvs 2002-09-04)" > > in some places, and leave $VERSION to be x.y.z like external programs that > > do arithmetics with this string expect (for example, rpm and fvwm-themes). > > I understand your point. My point is: > > * Nobody except the developers should run fvwm-themes against > CVS. And I guess it isn't hard to chop off the suffix from the > version number in cvs. > * Nobody should build a tarball or rpm from CVS except for > testing if the tarball builds. > * I don't want to see "I have x.y.z" ever again when the user has > the cvs sources. > > See the list above. These are all places where a user might look > to find out the release number and should all print "cvs" or > whatever as part of the version string. I mean, in a way that the > user concludes that it's part of the version name. > > I'd rather make some effort to filter out the suffix for tools > that can't handle it, but I'm open to a different solution that > achieve the same. A human readable suffix is fine, but I guess > > "2.5.4 (cvs)" > > would be reported as "2.5.4".
Will "2.5.04" or "2.5.4.0" work? Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], phone: 0721/91374-382 Schlund + Partner AG, Erbprinzenstr. 4-12, D-76133 Karlsruhe -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
