[Insight-developers] ITK version numbers

[Matt McCormick]

As I understand it, if we have dates in the patch version field, we
cannot also have add minor indicating a non-release, and still have
meaningful version comparisons.

Matt

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> I like minor even indicating a release.
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Matt McCormick
> <matt.mccormick at kitware.com> wrote:
>> As Brad remarks in the Gerrit comments, if we go the
>>
>>  major.minor.<patch|date>
>>
>> route, where the third number is a bug fix number if it is a release
>> or a date if it is not.  In this setup, evenness of the minor number
>> is not needed to indicate a release; if the third number is large, it
>> is not a release.
>>
>> Do we want to keep the convention of minor versions always being even
>> for releases?  The minor version will always be even in this case.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Matt McCormick
>> <matt.mccormick at kitware.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Unpaid intern in BillsBasement at noware dot com