| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Conventions for release numbering |
| Date: | 2005-06-13 04:49:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20050613014739.J90456@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:13:15PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote:
>>
>>> (No, wait, I'm not starting a release numbering discussion.)
>>>
>>>
>>> If we have release 8.0.3 where 8 is the Major releae,
>>> 0 is the minor release and 3 is the version (revision?),
>>> how would we refer to a generic release number:
>>>
>>> postgresql-M.m.v ? postgresql-M.m.r ?
>>>
>>> Is this our convention? Do either of these work?
>>
>> Assuming v==version and r==release, is there a big difference between the
>> two? How are each defined?
>
> That is my question! What do we conventionally use?
Neither and both? Since I don't know the difference (if any) between the
final being considered r(elease) or v(ersion) ...
Its always just been 'Major'.'Minor'.'Bug Fixes' ... so is 'Bug Fixes' ==
version or release?
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2005-06-13 14:41:53 | Re: Conventions for release numbering |
| Previous Message | elein | 2005-06-13 02:38:18 | Re: Conventions for release numbering |