Version Numbers

[Chris Johns]

On 28/07/2015 6:01 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> 
> ----- Gedare Bloom <gedare at gwu.edu> schrieb:
>> Extrapolating a bit, we would have:
>> 4.11.0 release series (following old conventions)
>> 5.0 next development version, no release
>> 5.1 next release, with 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 as subsequent bugfix (maintenance) releases
>> 6.0 next development version after 5.0
>> 6.1 next release after 5.1, with 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 as before?
>>
>> The alternate scheme I have seen suggested is more convoluted, and it
>> involves using even numbers for development versions, and odd numbers
>> for releases. In this scheme we would have:
>> 5.0 next development version, no release
>> 5.1 next release, with 5.2 as the development version of the bugfix
>> branch, and 5.3 as the bugfix release.
>> 6.0 is development version after 5.0.
>> 6.1 next release, with 6.3, 6.5, etc as bug fix.
>>
>> The advantage of this scheme is that all development versions have a
>> clear label. The question boils down to do we care to provide
>> development version numbers of maintenance branches?
> 
> I am fine with this scheme.  So, there is basically a single Y.ODD commit for the release, and then a Y.ODD+1 commit to change the number for the next development cycle.  I think its nice if we can go from three numbers X.Y.Z to just two.  It should be clear for the user which version corresponds to a release, and what is work in progress. 
> 

https://devel.rtems.org/wiki/Developer/Release#RTEMSReleaseNumberingandNaming

Amar ?

>>
>> Either scheme fits pretty well with RTEMS release cycle I think. Even
>> if we can get down to one release per year, the numbers won't grow
>> terribly fast.
> 
> One release per year would be nice.
> 

We may need more flexibility.

Chris