Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Warning: Tree raster can hang you

[Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@xxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 06:24:31AM +0300, Tuomas J. Lukka wrote:
> The confusion for the users. Even alphabetic ordering goes against
> this scheme. you'll find lots of users downloading 0.9 even though you're
> up to 0.13.

The solution is to highlight the lastest version, and provide the old
releases behind a curtain.  Look at how SourgeForge manages the file
releases, for example.

> Any realistic reason?

I find it hard to estimate the "completeness" of the release, or
the closeness to the next "whole" number, or the "bigness" of a step
forward, compared to the whole way from 0 to 1.  Thus one rapidly gets
into a situation where one has releases 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, ... or
something else as stupid.  I like a scheme where there is no upper bound
for any field.

> Also, there's the semantics: what's 0.1.0 supposed to mean? A big
> step forwards?

MAJOR.MINOR.PATCHLEVEL

is something that is commonly used.  Thus 0.1.0 would be the second
minor release, unpatched.

Or:

VERSION.RELEASE.PATCHLEVEL

thus 0.1.0 is the second release of the first version.

-- 
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@xxxxxx % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%