rfc: VERSION change

[Gedare Bloom]

Ralf, would it be acceptable if the convention instead was that .even
(including 0) is a development version and .odd is a release version?

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Ralf Corsepius
<ralf.corsepius at rtems.org> wrote:
> On 04/22/2013 10:51 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to propose we change the version numbering system for the
>> development (and release branches) to represent the next pending
>> release number for that branch. So VERSION would contain, for the
>> following branches:
>> master -> 4.11.0
>> 4.10 -> 4.10.3
>> 4.9 -> 4.9.7
>> 4.8 -> 4.8.3
>>
>> This will simplify a number of release-related procedures, as well as
>> make the master tool versions align with the VERSION information.
>> Hopefully it will also reduce user confusion.
>>
>> Register any complaints or cheers here.
>
> I disagree with this proposal wrt. 4.11.
>
> 4.11.0 is reserved for the final release..
>
> Prereleases are supposed to use a version number < 4.11, which gradually
> converges towards 4.11.0. This is *necessary* to be able to keep 4.11
> (final) distinguishable from 4.11 prereleases.
>
> It's the same thing what eg. binutils and other GNU projects do.
>
> In other words, if you increment the version, above 4.11.0, you need to
> branch a 4.11 branch.
>
> Ralf
>