Re: Suggested even/odd convention for the micro version numbers (like cairo)

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 15:38 +0200, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > Is this a current problem now?
> 
> Not a major problem, as far as I know.
> 
> I was prompted to (re-?) post the suggestion by a message to the
> evolution-hackers list where it was suggested that Evolution changes
> from using pre-release version bump to using post-release bump. So
> clearly at least some people find it important and beneficial that
> right after a release the version in SVN is incremented, to clearly
> separate the release and subsequent development.

This is actually the recommendation of the GNOME release team:
http://live.gnome.org/MaintainersCorner/Releasing
and it's done by a lot of GNOME modules already.

But the reason is that it's then easier to make it clear that your
module depends on an unreleased version of another module, not for any
general identification of svn versions and tarball versions.

>  Presumably, other
> people then again have the opposite view, they find it important that
> the version is incremented when a release is made, to make a clean cut
> between the development up to the release and the actual release.
> Doing both pre- and post-release bumping should satisfy both groups,
> shouldn't it?
> 
> > Would  there be any other advantages?
> 
> Not as far as I know.

Then I don't personally see the point of the added complication.

-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com