On Jan 8, 2008, at 3:43 AM, Mike Orr wrote:
> > Generally a third-level number is a minor bugfix release. A > second-level number indicates feature changes or backward > incompatibilities. A first-level number indicates a major paradigm > shift. > the problem with 0.4.3, 0.4.4 etc. is that we assign those numbers as milestones in trac, and we do have a notion of a set of features that will be slowly rolled out over the course of the 0.4 series. Its really just the "0." at the beginning of the number which makes our scheme "different"..so it would imply that we'd have a four-level version number, i.e. 0.4.2.1 0.4.2.2 etc. (because the "0." is pretty much superfluous). But we usually dont have fourth-level versions, its only because 0.4.2 got a little more involved than a usual point release that we are in this "abc" thing (which note at the moment ive switched to 0.4.2r3). as far as the "0.", im really glad that the 0.1 series wasnt called "SQLAlchemy 1.0" , as well as that 0.2 wasnt "SQLAlchemy 2.0", etc. 0.1 and 0.2 were absolutely not major-version number products. 0.4 is starting to look more major versioned to me, but if we went thru 0.4 and then jumped to 1.0, that would seem kind of brittle as well. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
