Re: 3.0 Branch

[Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>]

Phil Edwards <pedwards@disaster.jaj.com> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 08:53:10AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Neil Booth wrote:
> > 
> > > Let's change the version number of the branch to something else, so we
> > > can tell whether the test results are of the branch or HEAD.
> > 
> > Perhaps 2.98 on the branch and 3.1 for HEAD, if we don't want to change to
> > 3.0 on the branch yet?
> 
> 2.98 on the branch sounds good.  Or 3.0pre1, 3.0pre2, ..., 3.0pre99. :-)
> 
> 3.1 on the HEAD doesn't sound so good.  It implies that we've already
> skipped past an existing 3.0.  Once 3.0 is released, then 3.1 or 3.0x
> would seem correct.

I'm recommend 3.0.90 on the HEAD.  This follows the GNU style of
version numbering, where versions numbered >= 90 are test or
unreleased versions.

It'd probably be more consistent to use 3.0pre1 for the branch because
it'll surely be 3.0.1pre1 when we test 3.0.1...

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>