[mythtv] MythTV - Version 1.0
kleptophobiac at gmail.com
Thu Feb 9 18:02:53 UTC 2006
What's insane about things like SVN revision numbers where the number
is an integer that just keeps growing? Why bother separating into
major and minor revisions? Certain revision numbers could just have a
"stable" flag set when they are "released" as opposed to "in
On 2/8/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:54:57AM -0800, Ross Campbell wrote:
> > > Is it time to call it Version 1.0?
> > >
> > > Myth is too good to have it start with a zero!
> > We have to have a 0.5x and 0.99.x series first :)
> > and version 0.99 needs to be followed by 0.100!
> > <peeve>
> > I hate it when opensource programs go from version .9 to .10 or .99 to
> > .100 - version numbers should be NUMBERS. New versions should have
> > HIGHER numbers than the previous versions, or at very least they
> > should alphanumerically sort as "higher"
> > </peeve)
> You're attempting to parse software version numbers as rational
> It should become apparent that this is unreasonable at the point at
> which version numbers grow a third component (0.18.1).
> Each component of a version number is an independent item, and should
> be interpreted that way. 0.100, while less common than 0.10, is
> perfectly valid, and is higher than 0.10 (since each component of the
> version number is an independent integer, trailing zeros are
> This is the most common version numbering scheme, and also the sanest.
> -- jr 'IMNSHO' a
> Jay R. Ashworth jra at baylink.com
> Designer Baylink RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
> St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
> A: No.
> Q: Should I include quotations after my message body?
> mythtv-dev mailing list
> mythtv-dev at mythtv.org
More information about the mythtv-dev