2005-03-19 06:07:19 +01:00
|
|
|
$Id$
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-02-28 19:08:58 +01:00
|
|
|
HOW TOR VERSION NUMBERS WORK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The Old Way
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before 0.1.0, versions were of the format:
|
|
|
|
|
MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO(status(PATCHLEVEL))?(-cvs)?
|
|
|
|
|
where MAJOR, MINOR, MICRO, and PATCHLEVEL are numbers, status is one
|
|
|
|
|
of "pre" (for an alpha release), "rc" (for a release candidate), or
|
|
|
|
|
"." for a release. As a special case, "a.b.c" was equivalent to
|
|
|
|
|
"a.b.c.0". We compare the elements in order (major, minor, micro,
|
|
|
|
|
status, patchlevel, cvs), with "cvs" preceding non-cvs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We would start each development branch with a final version in mind:
|
|
|
|
|
say, "0.0.8". Our first pre-release would be "0.0.8pre1", followed by
|
|
|
|
|
(for example) "0.0.8pre2-cvs", "0.0.8pre2", "0.0.8pre3-cvs",
|
|
|
|
|
"0.0.8rc1", "0.0.8rc2-cvs", and "0.0.8rc2". Finally, we'd release
|
|
|
|
|
0.0.8. The stable CVS branch would then be versioned "0.0.8.1-cvs",
|
|
|
|
|
and any eventual bugfix release would be "0.0.8.1".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. The New Way
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After 0.1.0, versions are of the format:
|
|
|
|
|
MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO(.PATCHLEVEL)(-status_tag)
|
2008-08-03 07:35:42 +02:00
|
|
|
The stuff in parentheses is optional. As before, MAJOR, MINOR, MICRO,
|
2007-02-28 19:08:58 +01:00
|
|
|
and PATCHLEVEL are numbers, with an absent number equivalent to 0.
|
|
|
|
|
All versions should be distinguishable purely by those four
|
|
|
|
|
numbers. The status tag is purely informational, and lets you know how
|
|
|
|
|
stable we think the release is: "alpha" is pretty unstable; "rc" is a
|
|
|
|
|
release candidate; and no tag at all means that we have a final
|
|
|
|
|
release. If the tag ends with "-cvs" or "-dev", you're looking at a
|
|
|
|
|
development snapshot that came after a given release. If we *do*
|
|
|
|
|
encounter two versions that differ only by status tag, we compare them
|
|
|
|
|
lexically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, we start each development branch with (say) 0.1.1.1-alpha. The
|
|
|
|
|
patchlevel increments consistently as the status tag changes, for
|
|
|
|
|
example, as in: 0.1.1.2-alpha, 0.1.1.3-alpha, 0.1.1.4-rc 0.1.1.5-rc,
|
|
|
|
|
Eventually, we release 0.1.1.6. The next patch release is 0.1.1.7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Between these releases, CVS is versioned with a -cvs tag: after
|
|
|
|
|
0.1.1.1-alpha comes 0.1.1.1-alpha-cvs, and so on. But starting with
|
|
|
|
|
0.1.2.1-alpha-dev, we switched to SVN and started using the "-dev"
|
|
|
|
|
suffix instead of the "-cvs" suffix.
|
