From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-07 12:43:21
On 12/6/05 10:31 AM, "Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
[SNIP]
> 2) As was previously stated here, there is no attempt to make versions x.y.z
> and x.y.(z+1) binary compatible. From a user's perspective there is therefor
> no difference between version y.(z+1) and (y+1), neither in terms of features,
> nor in terms of time between releases. I therefor suggest to drop the last
> component, too. Releases therefor become simply a simple sequence 34, 35, ...
> This obviously doensn't have any impact on any branching policies, or release
> planning. It only affects the user's perception of releases and how they
> relate to each other.
That next-to-last sentence isn't accurate. We create a new CVS branch when
we prepare a x.y.0 release. All subsequent x.y.z releases are based off
that branch. This is maintained independently of the HEAD where future
x.(y+1) code is developed (before creating a x.(y+1).0 branch). We
definitely want to keep those two types of releases distinct.
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com