Hi
The simplified version numbering scheme is partially my fault. In fact, I was
initially even in favor of format "n.m" instead of "n.mm". Here are 4 reasons
why m.nn version numbers (=> 100 revisions/increment of m) will easily suffice
and 3 reasons why a more elaborate scheme would be harmful:
***
4 reasons why m.nn version numbers will suffice:
- WDs prior to version 1.0 are WG internal and therefore not in the doc
collection but remain in the roams of the WG where they can be freely altered
without following any particular policy as long as the document layout is such
that it prevents confusion with those on the official document tree.
- But also after V1.0 internal drafts can be circulated within the WG, on the
Wiki and on the mailing lists as often as deemed necessary.
- Experience shows that it easily takes 6 weeks to review, rewrite and repost
a document. Having potentially 100 revisions allows to intensively work on it
for up to 10 years on a single version! If this is not enough one should
seriously consider splitting the document into smaller solvable pieces.
- Each version increment also requires the WG chair to review things, document
changes within the doc. and - as our experience shows - to fiddle together with
the DC on little details. Neither the WG chairs nor the DC have got the time to
exhaust the potential number of possible revisions assuming that we all have
only 24 hours a day.
***
3 reasons why a more elaborate scheme is harmful:
- We should consider also the consumer point of view: Which one do you trust
more: V2.0 or V1.19.04?
V2.0 appears trustworthy and comforting to pick up and to develop against
whereas V1.19.04 implies fragility, uncertainty and one can never remember the
exact number anyway.
- Each WG and author has a different attitude towards version increments. The
more freedom we leave the more inconsistent will version numbers appear across
the document tree.
- The official doc collection is aimed at the whole VO community and beyond;
if a revision is considered so minor that it isn't reflected within the first 2
version number components then by definition it is not worth bothering the
whole community.
***
It is interesting to note that the particular WG using numbers like 0.7.n
spends considerable time discussing which version they are actually working on.
A remark to Ray:
It is a bit unfortunate that your name is acknowledged as the one suggesting
the scheme, after we put it upside down. I can understand that you don't want
to be blamed for something which is not your fault, but on the other hand Bob
just tried to give credit where it seemed to be due. Give us advice at the end
of the discussion on how to change it.
Markus
Received on 2004-04-02Z10:00:45