[erlang-questions] FW: Version numbering scheme change and the implication / Re: [ANN] Erlang/OTP 17.0-rc1 has been released.

[Andreas Schumacher]

Correction: I meant to write "Re: otp_version: In addition to 
erlang:system_info(otp_version) [where otp_version will replace 
otp_correction_package], a corresponding flag "otp_version" - similar to 
[emulator] "version" - is going to be added to the erl command [...]"

Nevertheless, due to Vlad's and Dave Cottlehuber's request to be able to 
extract the complete OTP version externally, i.e. without starting 
erlang, we are still discussing other alternatives.

Andreas


On 02/13/2014 02:11 PM, Andreas Schumacher wrote:
> Re: otp_version: In addition to 
> erlang:system_info(otp_correction_package), a corresponding flag 
> "otp_version" - similar to [emulator] "version" - is going to be added 
> to the erl command, in order to allow the extraction of the complete 
> version number from command line tools. Other additions to extract the 
> Erlang/OTP version have not been planned.
>
> Re: 17.0.0 =?= 17.0: Yes, they are the same. We could have used the 
> extra ".0", but we chose not to.
>
> Andreas
>
> ----------
> Andreas Schumacher, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vlad Dumitrescu [mailto:vladdu55@REDACTED]
>> Sent: den 13 februari 2014 10:35
>> To: Andreas Schumacher
>> Cc: Anthony Ramine; erlang-questions; Rickard Green
>> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Version numbering scheme change and 
>> the implication / Re: [ANN] Erlang/OTP 17.0-rc1 has been released.
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> A couple of more questions about versins:
>>
>> - how can we find the otp_version without starting erlang? 
>> otp_release is in the start scripts, but I can't find anywhere 
>> "17.0-rc1"...
>> - is 17.0.0 the same as 17.0? Is it a problem to use the extra ".0"?
>>
>> regards,
>> Vlad
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Andreas Schumacher 
>> <andreas@REDACTED> wrote:
>>>  From the versioning clarification mail that I sent on behalf of the
>>> OTP team to the list on February 7:
>>>
>>>
>>> "The new version scheme is *not* semantic versioning; although, it has
>>> been inspired by it. We do not want to use semantic versioning (as
>>> defined by
>>> http://semver.org/) out of the box since it does not fit our needs."
>>>
>>> Andreas Schumacher
>>> Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: erlang-questions-bounces@REDACTED
>>>> [mailto:erlang-questions-bounces@REDACTED] On Behalf Of Anthony
>>>> Ramine
>>>> Sent: den 12 februari 2014 02:48
>>>> To: Rickard Green
>>>> Cc: erlang-questions@REDACTED
>>>> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Version numbering scheme change and
>>>> the implication / Re: [ANN] Erlang/OTP 17.0-rc1 has been released.
>>>>
>>>> So OTP won't follow semantic versioning, right?
>>>>
>>>> Just seeking confirmation about semver.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Anthony Ramine
>>>>
>>>> Le 12 févr. 2014 à 00:43, Rickard Green <rickard@REDACTED> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> As of OTP 17 we drop this patch level number sequence and start
>>>>> using one set of patch level numbers per release. The patch level is
>>>>> not expressed as an integer as it used to be, but instead as a
>>>>> version number <X>.<Y>.<Z>[.<N> ...], for example, 17.0.1. This way
>>>>> the patch level gives you a bit more information. You can for
>>>>> example see directly which OTP release it applies to. This patch
>>>>> level version number also replace the -<X> tar-ball naming scheme.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>