>> Not sure what that number becomes if we ever move to git, though..
>
> What it becomes, as you know, is a human-opaque string of gibberish...
> (Technically I understand why it is like that, but I really can't believe we
> couldn't figure out some way to hide that behind some human-friend
On 1 Mar 2013, at 15:39, Greg Ercolano wrote:
> On 03/01/13 01:33, MacArthur, Ian (Selex ES, UK) wrote:
>> What Mike said: As soon as *anything* in SVN changes after a release, we
>> need to "bump" the version numbers in some way.
>
> Or, just change it immediately after release.
>
On 03/01/13 01:33, MacArthur, Ian (Selex ES, UK) wrote:
> What Mike said: As soon as *anything* in SVN changes after a release, we need
> to "bump" the version numbers in some way.
Or, just change it immediately after release.
Changing the version number is itself a change, and wo
On 01.03.2013 11:55, Peter Åstrand wrote:
> Suggestion: After the release is done, append "post" to the version number.
The version number must be numeric, three parts only, see:
http://www.fltk.org/doc-1.3/enumerations.html
"The FLTK version number is stored in a number of compile-time constan
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, MacArthur, Ian (Selex ES, UK) wrote:
Oh, and another question: WHEN do we upgrade the version number(s)?
(a) immediately after one release, for the next release, or
What Mike said: As soon as *anything* in SVN changes after a release, we need to
"bump" the version numbe
> IIRC I haven't seen a real "freeware" (public domain) proposal.
> Wouldn't this be appropriate for the example code?
I see Mike's already said this, but thought I'd re-iterate: way back when, in
my naivety, I went looking for a Public Domain license, and was told that such
a thing really doesn
> > 1) For large commercial software, I have a VERSION file in
> the
> > main directory with a single line in it: VERSION=#.#
> > This can be include'ed from Makefiles to define macros used
> > on everything from compile lines to Makefile constructio
On 01.03.2013 04:16, Michael Sweet wrote:
> On 2013-02-28, at 8:24 PM, Albrecht Schlosser <...> wrote:
>> IIRC I haven't seen a real "freeware" (public domain) proposal.
>> Wouldn't this be appropriate for the example code?
>
> Unfortunately, "public domain" isn't a universally-recognized status
