Activity versioning schema

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Eben Eliason <eben.eliason at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is still a whole bunch clearer than trying to convince someone
> that version 5 is newer than version 10! (where 10 is a "bugfix" release to
> what used to be version 4.)

You're undercutting your own points: what does "newer" mean?  If you
want chronological "newness", then use ISO8601 dates.  Otherwise, just
release a version 11 at the same time as 10, so that versions 10 and
11 are the chronologically newest releases, 11 for 8.2 users and 10
for 8.1 users, and those people using '9' don't get confused.  This
really seems like a non-issue to me.  If your development style really
wants to use minor versions, make up your own mapping to integers: 5.0
= 500, 5.1=501, etc.  But regardless, adding dotted integers for
version numbers isn't a real concern for me: it touches a number of
pieces of code and documentation at this point, but we can go ahead
and make that change early in 9.1 if you like.  But it still doesn't
actually do anything towards solving the problem you initially posed:
the only difference between 500 and 5.0 is perceptual.
 --scott

-- 
 ( http://cscott.net/ )