On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:06:37PM -0700, Chris Quenelle wrote:
>
> "0.2008.11 -> 0.2009.3"
> The 2008.11 to 2009.3 part looks good
>
> Does anyone know the rationale behind starting our version numbers with 0?
> I don't think we ever asked for that.
> Is it some kind of comment on our product readiness? :-)
It's because the final versioning hasn't been decided yet, and by using 0
as the major version, once the final versioning is decided, we can move to
it without having to figure out how to move backwards. :)
There are a few packages in JDS which should have a version number less
than 0.5.11, so we weren't quite smart enough.
> When we start delivering FCS versions, we expect them to be numbered
> something sensible like 12.1, 13.0, etc. But the express releases are
> named using the release dates. AFAIK, since they will be in different
> packages ("sunstudio" vs "sunstudioexpress", and installed into different
> directories ("/opt/SunStudioExpress" vs "/opt/SunStudio"), it shouldn't be
> a problem to have different numbering schemes.
That's probably true. The thing is, if you want to go back to 12.x or 13.x
for SSE after having numbered it 200x.y, then, well, you can't. So be very
very sure.
We have talked about having a "human-friendly" version available as a
package attribute, which would allow us to have things like 3.0.4c, but
would also allow us to completely decouple the package version from the
marketing version. In which case I'd much rather see the package version
not have the date in it.
Danek
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
