* Chris Quenelle <[email protected]> [2009-03-23 23:08]:
>
> "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? :-)
Nope. It's that we were concerned that, for Sun-originated packages
in particular, we wouldn't know where the appropriate versions should
be, so we pushed them down to "0.something", which we expect will be
less than the ultimate version selected.
That is, it lets us renumber everything one more time without
tremendous pain. After that, a version reset requires additional
package operations (like a rename).
> 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.
This scheme sounds reasonable to me. Once we settle on Rich's renames
on a larger scale, we can probably set these to their real values.
- Stephen
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
