[Insight-developers] ITK version numbers

[Bill Lorensen]

With long release cycles like VTK I think the date is important.

This is certainly true with the wiki examples where we want to have
the examples work for released and non-released versions. I don't see
the harm in having a patch based on date for the odd versions between
releases. For even number releases, the patch number should increment
from 0.

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:39 PM, David Cole <david.cole at kitware.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Brad King <brad.king at kitware.com> wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 4:03 PM, Matt McCormick wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> We can.  VTK does it.  Bill L. is using it in the VTK examples.
>>
>> Version number updates will look like this (time goes up):
>>
>>  o 4.3.20120601
>>  |
>>  o 4.2.0
>>  |
>>  o 4.1.20120601
>>  |
>>  .
>>  . o 4.0.1
>>  . |
>>  | |
>>  o | 4.1.20111219
>>  | |
>>  |/
>>  o 4.0.0
>>
>> -Brad
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>
>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>
>> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
>> http://kitware.com/products/protraining.html
>>
>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
>> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>>
>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
>
>
> I don't think using the date in the version number is tenable long
> term now that we've switched to git as the version control system. It
> only makes sense when:
>
> - you have a heartbeat commit every single day regardless of whether
> anything else is changing
> - you're making the comparison on a single known branch on which the
> heartbeat commit takes place
>
> We're trying, trying, trying to get to a system in the CMake project
> where we do not have to have this heartbeat commit. One of the things
> we're going to do eventually to get away from it is rely on "git
> describe" output to come up with the last bit of the version number.
>
> NO DATE.
>
> At least that's the way I lean. If somebody has a compelling
> counter-argument, I'd like to hear it.
>
>
> David C.
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
> http://kitware.com/products/protraining.html
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers



-- 
Unpaid intern in BillsBasement at noware dot com