Hi, I did not pay sufficient attention to version numbering till now, and I have a newly submitted package with version 1.0.3 in the devel branch. I just realized that this is not really correct. Also, I'm updating it and I have to decide the new version number. I wonder if and how I could fix this number at this point. On one hand I should have had something like 0.99.3 at this point, but it does not sound good to me to go from 1.0.3 to 0.99.4 ... On the other hand I could go to from 1.0.3 to 1.1.0 (that is going to be 1.2.0 in the release) but still I'm not sure a newly release package can appear with 1.2.0 in the release branch .. Thanks for any suggestion, mattia
[Bioc-devel] package version numbering
3 messages · mattia pelizzola, Sean Davis, Robert Gentleman
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:04 PM, mattia pelizzola
<mattia.pelizzola at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I did not pay sufficient attention to version numbering till now, and I have a newly submitted package with version 1.0.3 in the devel branch. I just realized that this is not really correct. Also, I'm updating it and I have to decide the new version number. I wonder if and how I could fix this number at this point. On one hand I should have had something like 0.99.3 at this point, but it does not sound good to me to go from 1.0.3 to 0.99.4 ... On the other hand I could go to from 1.0.3 to 1.1.0 (that is going to be 1.2.0 in the release) but still I'm not sure a newly release package can appear with 1.2.0 in the release branch ..
Hi, Mattia. The numbering (except for the second value, which needs to be odd in development) is arbitrary. I would go with 1.1.0. Sean
Sean Davis wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:04 PM, mattia pelizzola <mattia.pelizzola at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I did not pay sufficient attention to version numbering till now, and I have a newly submitted package with version 1.0.3 in the devel branch. I just realized that this is not really correct. Also, I'm updating it and I have to decide the new version number. I wonder if and how I could fix this number at this point. On one hand I should have had something like 0.99.3 at this point, but it does not sound good to me to go from 1.0.3 to 0.99.4 ... On the other hand I could go to from 1.0.3 to 1.1.0 (that is going to be 1.2.0 in the release) but still I'm not sure a newly release package can appear with 1.2.0 in the release branch ..
Hi, Mattia. The numbering (except for the second value, which needs to be odd in development) is arbitrary. I would go with 1.1.0.
and never ever go to a lower number - all of the tools for updating
packages etc presume that higher numbers are newer...
thx
Robert
Sean
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
Robert Gentleman, PhD Program in Computational Biology Division of Public Health Sciences Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M2-B876 PO Box 19024 Seattle, Washington 98109-1024 206-667-7700 rgentlem at fhcrc.org