[Cuis] Fwd: Re: DIRECT version number

[H. Hirzel]

KenD

I like your proposal. And earlier you suggested to have one of these
base line versions per year.

--Hannes

On 7/19/15, Ken.Dickey <Ken.Dickey at whidbey.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 11:20:19 -0300
> Juan Vuletich <juan at jvuletich.org> wrote:
>
>> As a bottom line, let me repeat: This is too big for me to do it.
>> Please, folks, start documenting the APIs you most care about.
>
> Let me repeat, "you don't have to do it".
>
> I'd like to propose a simpler model based on the Smalltalk Way.
>
> We take any stable revision, call it a version, give it a Baseline Version
> Number (could be just the development version number).  Each Baseline
> Release has a release document which describes major changes since the
> previous baseline.  This document is a light-weight description.
>
> Each baseline release starts a new fork.  The only changes to the particular
> baseline release are bug fixes.
>
> Nice users test their packages and likewise fork a Package Release which
> matches a Baseline Release.  This fork also only changes with bug fixes, and
> only in synch with its particular baseline.  Baseline packages Feature the
> baseline release.
>
> So we forge ahead as usual, once in a while we say "enough has changed that
> we should re-baseline", do a new Baseline Release, test and release our
> Package Releases, then again move on forward.
>
> Anyone can now pick any baseline release, require any associated packages,
> and ship/demo without fear.
>
> Anyone with the time, energy, and interest can document baseline APIs to
> whatever level they feel comfortable.
>
> Anyone can forge on ahead with the latest revision(s) with the usual "here
> be dragons, but also gold".
>
> $0.02
> -KenD
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> Cuis at jvuletich.org
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>