Hi Ray,
the "simplification" of version numbering came from some thoughts
about document process:
- do we really need 10000 versions in between ver. 0.1 and the first
published WD (i.e. ver. 1.0)?
- the documents process does not take into account the xml files et
similia: they are "supplementary resources" that means you can follow
your preferred numbering schema (CVS, RCS, VSS, etc.).
Cheers,
Marco
Ray Plante wrote:
>Hi Bob, Markus, Marco,
>
>I know I should have said something earlier, so feel free to say, "it's
>too late to change it."
>
>Thanks for the acknowledgement in the Guidelines Note regarding version
>numbers; however, you modified my suggestion in toward a direction I was
>trying to get away from. The convention of having 0.21 come between 0.2
>and 0.22 has a real problem: you only get ten revisions of a particular
>level. What comes after 0.99 if you are not ready for 1.0? 0.991? Or
>are you out of luck? The result is that you no longer have a sense of how
>major a change the revision is.
>
>The point of *my* saying "fields on either side of the period (.) are
>integers" is to say that 3 comes between 2 and 4, and 21 come between 20
>and 22. All increments between a set of periods are considered the same
>level of change.
>
>This is how RCS, CVS, and probably most other revision control systems
>work.
>
>cheers,
>Ray
>
Received on 2004-04-01Z07:38:22