[Insight-developers] ITK version numbers

[Matt McCormick]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Brad King <brad.king at kitware.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 3:04 PM, Matt McCormick wrote:
>>
>> How about
>>
>>   major.minor.patch.tweak
>>
>> Where tweak is "0" for a release (edited by a commit), and a YYYYMMDD
>> time stamp otherwise.
>
>
> This is CMake's approach exactly.  We've never actually done a "tweak"
> release beyond 0 since switching to this scheme but the version number
> has room for it.
>
>
>> This way can have easy version comparisons and patch releases.
>
> I'm not sure it works for ITK's model.  In ITK we do lots of development
> in master and occasionally update older releases with new patch levels.
> The patch number on old release branches that gets updated for fixes
> must be in the same component as the date on master.  In other words,
> if we have a branch for "4.0.x" then the date stamp on master needs
> to be in the ".x" component.  If the latest release is 4.0.0 then
> the version on master should be "4.0.$date".  If we port a fix back
> to the release then we create "4.0.1" as the patch release.
>
> With ITK's historical release behavior I think the scheme
>
>  major.minor.<patch|date>

Implemented in patch set 3:

  http://review.source.kitware.com/#change,3545

Thanks,
Matt


>
> makes the most sense if we use the date at all.
>
> -Brad