[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [virt-tools-list] VirtViewer version scheme and Windows ProductVersion




----- Mensaje original -----
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:06:47AM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange redhat com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I would like to know what is the purpose of the leading 0.
> > >
> > > It is simply part of the version number,  (major, minor, micro).
> > > That it is zero simply means I've not considered us to be at
> > > version 1.0.0 yet. It doesn't indicate that the leading 0 is
> > > unused.
> > 
> > What would you consider to be 1.0.0 ?
> 
> Originally I had planned to declare it 1.0.0 when I had refactored it
> to provide a library API for embedding. That's unlikely to be any time
> soon though, so it is possible we should just declare our next release
> which includes non-trivial new features to be 1.0.0
> 
> > Why not just 1.0?
> 
> Because I prefer 3 digit version numbers.

What is the difference between "minor" and "micro" in your naming? How can it be decided or interpreted between one or the other? It is worth to have some clear rule for versioning.

> > Well, upstream would have the same issue if it would have a "stable"
> > release of some sort.

You drop the possibility to make stable windows installer releases upstream?

Or you would implement the 8 bit shifting of "minor" in the productversion "build" field?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]