discuss: version numbers
Subject:
Re: version numbers
From:
"Greg Ferguson" ####@####.####
Date:
10 Mar 2001 17:03:30 -0000
Message-Id: <10103101158.ZM29006@hoop.timonium.sgi.com>
On Mar 10, 10:47am, Steven Pritchard wrote:
> Subject: version numbers
> Perhaps I'm jumping the gun a little, but I decided to jump in and
> start converting the Hardware HOWTO to DocBook as a first step to
> getting it updated. (On a side note, are there any automated tools
> for converting Linuxdoc to DocBook?)
Yes. We use Reuben Thomas' "ld2db" convertor as part of our standard
process (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~rrt/). All linuxdoc documents
should have an accompanying filtered version available in DocBook.
The filtered version still requires edits, it's not 100% clean,
but it gives the author a start.
> I noticed that the version number in the document seemed to have a
> scheme that went year.revision, so the last version was v99.3. A
> version I found from 1997 was v97.6. Going back to a version from
> FRiC in 1995, the version number was v6969. :-)
>
> Does anyone actually pay any attention to this? Would it be safe to
> just change it to match the CVS revision number or something? Is
> there a "standard" version number scheme?
It's up to the author. We advocate a traditional "#.#{.#}" scheme.
r,
Ferg
