[darcs-users] darcs version scheme (let's use odds/evens next time)
Petr Rockai
me at mornfall.net
Sat Feb 20 13:17:01 UTC 2010
Jason Dagit <dagit at codersbase.com> writes:
> So, Eric explained to me on IRC that if we went with this last 'hybrid'
> approach we would try to avoid the alpha/beta/RC terminology and that the only
> officially accepted version names would be the numeric ones. So 2.5.97.x would
> be "official" but if someone said 2.6 alpha they are being informal and we
> shouldn't assume a specific version number to match it. And that he only
> mentioned the beta/alpha stuff above to bridge terminology.
Well, I find it *much* more intuitive to talk in alpha/beta/rc terms,
which have relatively well-defined meaning, than in numbers. The natural
way to express these things is using the ~-convention used by
Debian... however, it would need Cabal and Hackage support, which won't
be available for a while even if we went and implemented it now.
(Under this, the version numbers would look like 2.4~beta1, 2.4~rc1,
2.4, with the system understanding that 2.4~beta1 < 2.4~rc1 < 2.4, which
is achieved by sorting alphabetically on letters (a < b < r) and by
sorting ~ before \epsilon (the empty word), which is otherwise first (so
2.5 < 2.5.1).)
Yours,
Petr.
More information about the darcs-users
mailing list