Re: [Axiom-developer] Version numbers and merging improvements

[Martin Rubey]

Dear Cliff,

C Y <address@hidden> writes:

> 4.1 may not convey any technical information, but it DOES convey
> information.  If the previous version was 3.0, the user expects 3.0.1
> to be a minor fix (they probably won't directly see any change unless
> they're triggering a specific bug that was fixed) 3.1 to have some new
> features or significant fixes, and 4.0 to be a major improvement over
> the 3.x series.

I find it extremely hard to classify many of the recent (i.e., last few months)
changes in wh-sandbox as minor.  May well be that only a single line in the
algebra sources was modified, but still, if the result was wrong before and
correct after, this may well affect long computations.

Fortunate as we are that Axiom is gratis, I suggest that serious users should
svn up as often as they can.

But I admit that there are landmarks.  HyperDoc in wh-sandbox was one for me.
Hm, in fact, I do not know of any other landmark.  I don't care whether axiom
uses autoconf or not, to be honest.  If Waldek and Gaby say autotools make
maintainance easier, OK.  If Tim says, it doesn't, OK.

> > At least here in Austria, most people use wh-sandbox. 
> 
> Now, that's true.  Eventually, we should reach the point where users
> should be using Gold by default.  

Cliff, please stop thinking about the future.  Well, one month is OK, but three
months is certainly not *now*.  If you want to implement a versioning scheme,
please implement one that works with the current situation.

If you implement one that works for Gold only, forget it.


Martin