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

Rickard Green <>
Fri Feb 14 16:18:59 CET 2014


fredagen den 14:e februari 2014 skrev Tuncer Ayaz <>:

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Rickard Green wrote:
> >>> When branching out, we add ".1" at the end of <X>.<Y>.<Z>, unless
> >>> this version number has already been used. If it has already been
> >>> used, we search for an unused version number by adding more and more
> >>> ".0" between the version we are branching from, and the ".1" that we
> >>> add at the end. For example, 17.0.1.1, 17.0.1.0.1, 17.0.1.0.0.1, and
> >>> 17.0.1.0.0.0.1 are all versions of modifications based on version
> >>> 17.0.1.
> >>
> >> I can follow the rest of your email, but can you provide some real
> >> life examples for the case of inserting 0 upon branching?
> >
> > The version numbers above would be used if we need to publish four
> > separate fixes and:
> > - each one of them needs to be based on 17.0.1
> > - 17.0.2 has already been published
> > - each fix is only allowed to include specific changes
>
> So, 'separate' in this case means 'independent' patches, and
> therefore:


Independent and aren't allowed to be mixed.


>
> - 17.0.1.0.1 is 17.0.1 + 1st separate patch after 17.0.2 release
>
> - 17.0.1.0.0.1 is 17.0.1 + 2nd separate patch released next
>
> - 17.0.1.1 is 17.0.1 + 1st 'normal' patch
>
> - 17.0.1.2 is 17.0.1 + 2nd 'normal' patch
>
> Is that correct?


No, in the normal case the version number never get more parts than
<X>.<Y>.<Z>. If the version number has more parts than this, we've been
forced by external requirements to publish the patch.


>
> > Another scenario could be that we need to publish a sequence of four
> > fixes and:
> > - the first fix needs to be based on 17.0.1
> > - 17.0.2 has already been published
> > In this case we would use versions 17.0.1.1, 17.0.1.2, 17.0.1.3, and
> > 17.0.1.4.
>
> That makes sense.
>
> > From time to time we have requirements like this, however, not to
> > nearly as extreme as having to branch four times from the same
> > version.
>
> Sure, as long as as you don't priorize backport-ability over
> refactoring :).
>

Regards,
Rickard Green, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20140214/7638b20c/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list