umon3.0

[Joel Sherrill]

On 7/14/2015 10:51 AM, Ed Sutter wrote:
> On 7/14/2015 11:45 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> Some questions:
>> Do you plan to embed the version number within the repo? Or only on the release?
>>
>> Do you intend to call the development version the same as what the
>> release will be? This can be confusing for users, if they grab a
>> development head of 3.0 and then it is updated a few more times before
>> the release. There are varying ways to approach this issue.
> Sorry, didn't reply to this part of the question, cause I'm not really
> sure what you mean.
> If we can just have ONE number (even if it increments for every git
> push), that works
> for me.  In other words, whatever most accurately reflects the running
> version
> is best from my point of view.

One option is that version.h can be generated based on the git hash
and some base level major/minor scheme.

>>
>> Gedare
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Ed Sutter
>> <ed.sutter at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>>> Anyone,
>>> Any objections to starting this new uMon tree off as uMon3.0?
>>> History disallows me from using any major number less than '3'.
>>> Speak now or...  well, you know.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> umon-devel mailing list
>>> umon-devel at rtems.org
>>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/umon-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> umon-devel mailing list
> umon-devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/umon-devel
>

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985