Re: [docbook-tc] Proposed change to scheme versioning

["Hudson, Scott" <scott.hudson@schneider-electric.com>]

Sounds reasonable to me to keep the versions in sync. We'll have a little bit of work to do to communicate this out.

If we start incorporating some of the RFEs, that will generate a new number. In your proposal, that is handled by the -# correct? For example, Publishers v5.1 would be the base. Any changes would be Publishers v5.1-1, right?

Are there any OASIS naming conventions we need to follow? For example, the original publishers spec was:

publishers-1.0-spec-cd-02.html

would we want to use something like: 

db-publishers-5.1-01

db-assembly-5.1-beta-01

db-simplified-5.1-beta-01

db-xinc-5.1-beta-01

db-core-5.1-beta-01

OR should we put the version number at the beginning:

db-5.1-publishers-beta-01

db-5.1-assembly-beta-01

db-5.1-xinc-beta-01

db-5.1-core-beta-01

Thanks,

--Scott

On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Norman Walsh wrote:

Hi folks,

We're about to issue DocBook V5.1b5. Which might be used to make DocBook Publishers V1.1b3.
Or maybe Simplified DocBook V1.3b1. Or...oh, this is insane!

I propose a new versioning mechanism:

DocBook V5.1b5.
DocBook XInclud V5.1b5.
DocBook Assembly V5.1b5.
DocBook Publishers V5.1b5-1.
Simplified DocBook V5.1b5-1.

If we fix a bug in Publishers, that'll make V5.1b5-2. If we fixed a
tiny little typo, we could even consider V5.1b5-1.1 I suppose.

When DocBook V5.1 is released, then we'll make Publishers V5.1-1, etc.

It's not perfect, but it sure seems like an improvement to me.

                                       Be seeing you,
                                         norm

--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | Men are more like the times they
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | live in than they are like their
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | fathers.--Ali Ibn-abi-talib