[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] What are version numbers?

From: Samium Gromoff
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] What are version numbers?
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:12:50 +0400
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.11.3 (Wonderwall) SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.3 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:01:19 +0200 (CEST),
Pau Aliagas wrote:
> I still think as I did one year ago:
> -you don't need categories--branches--versions
> Why? Because the projects do not have any implicit relation among them; 
> the only relation is arbitrary, the relation you "feel" when they have 
> similar names. And this can be accomplished equally with free names.
> Let me explain it in an example:
> -I create projectA--prod--1.0
> -later on I create projectA--prod-1.1
> The only possible formal relation is that projectA--prod-1.1 is a 
> descendant of projectA--prod--1.0. But I could name it as I liked. In fact 
> I can name it as I want and have this ancestor relation -i.e. 
> projA--prod--1.0.
> For me things would be much easier to understand if you only had a project 
> name, free syntax. You could abrowse the tree using regular expressions if 
> you kept a disciplne; if you don't, it's up to you.
> Forcing this schema is forcing policy, but for what's worse, for no gain. 
> The only use I've found of version numbers is in config projects, where, 
> if you do not specify a version, it looks for the newest one. And this can 
> be accomplished in the same way with free names!
> So my opinion is: "Let the user decide his naming schemes".

 So what about introducing c-v-b in complement to c-b-v, so that user can
truly decide, unencumbered by the ordering? Not that it creates a _big_
problem, but nevertheless it would be much more convenient and natural
for him i believe.

> Pau

regards, Samium Gromoff

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]