[erlang-questions] FW: Version numbering scheme change and the implication / Re: [ANN] Erlang/OTP 17.0-rc1 has been released.
Fri Feb 14 17:10:39 CET 2014
We have not considered to avoid -rc<N> [in favor of 17.99.1], nor do we
intend to do so.
Andreas Schumacher, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tuncer Ayaz [mailto:]
> Sent: den 13 februari 2014 21:34
> To: Andreas Schumacher
> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Version numbering scheme change and the implication / Re: [ANN] Erlang/OTP 17.0-rc1 has been released.
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Andreas Schumacher wrote:
>> A pre-release is denoted with <X>.0-rc<N>, where <N> starts with 1 at
>> the delivery of the first pre-release, and is incremented by one for
>> each subsequent pre-release. "-rc0" will be used during development up
>> to the first release candidate. Pre-releases <X>-rc<N> sort before
>> <X>. Apart from <X>-rc<N>, there are no plans for other special parts;
>> although that might change if the need arises.
> Have you considered avoiding -rc<N> by using a scheme as follows:
> Next stable release: 17.0.0
> Next major release release candidate one: 17.99.1
> Isn't that simpler to deal with?
>> 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, 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168.1, 22.214.171.124.0.1, and
>> 126.96.36.199.0.0.1 are all versions of modifications based on version
> I can follow the rest of your email, but can you provide some real life examples for the case of inserting 0 upon branching?
More information about the erlang-questions