[GRASS5] Re: [GRASSLIST:1313] Re: datum transformation and r.proj

GRASS GRASS developer
1

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Glynn Clements wrote:

5.3 is the development version of 5.0. It will include anything which
is added to the 5.0 branch (although such changes will typically go
into 5.3 initially, then get merged into the 5.0 branch later), plus
some other changes which are too intrusive to go into the 5.3.x
releases (e.g. because they break backwards compatibility, or
introduce additional dependencies).

To reduce confusion, I think the version number for the CVS HEAD should
say
GRASS 5.3-cvs
rather than
GRASS 5.3.0-cvs (September 2003)
as it is now.

This ties in with Glynn's last paragraph above where there should be no
third number in the version, and no date, as the version does not correspond
to an official release.

If an experimental release is to be made from the CVS HEAD, the
src/CMD/version file can be temporarily changed to something like the
second format above, the files tagged, and then changed back again.

Anybody agree?

2

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:48:53AM +0100, Paul Kelly wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Glynn Clements wrote:

> 5.3 is the development version of 5.0. It will include anything which
> is added to the 5.0 branch (although such changes will typically go
> into 5.3 initially, then get merged into the 5.0 branch later), plus
> some other changes which are too intrusive to go into the 5.3.x
> releases (e.g. because they break backwards compatibility, or
> introduce additional dependencies).

To my understanding 5.3.x is the development version for 5.4.x ...
If something is nice there, it might get backported.
CVS also always can contain unstable stuff by definition at times.

To reduce confusion, I think the version number for the CVS HEAD should
say
GRASS 5.3-cvs
rather than
GRASS 5.3.0-cvs (September 2003)
as it is now.

This ties in with Glynn's last paragraph above where there should be no
third number in the version, and no date, as the version does not correspond
to an official release.

It is a matter of routine.
If we use the rules consistantly people will understand.

If an experimental release is to be made from the CVS HEAD, the
src/CMD/version file can be temporarily changed to something like the
second format above, the files tagged, and then changed back again.

Anybody agree?

I believe that the version number in the 5.3.x CVS should
contain "cvs". I know some project where it will contain the
upcoming number adding "-cvs" and believe that this is a good idea.
So as long as the are no 5.3.0 tarballs, the version number can be
5.3.0-cvs. When the tarballs are released, change this to 5.3.1-cvs.
No need for a date, though.

As written above it is not of utter importance as long as we do it
consistantly.

Just my 0.02 (Euro-) cents.

Bernhard

3

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

I believe that the version number in the 5.3.x CVS should
contain "cvs". I know some project where it will contain the
upcoming number adding "-cvs" and believe that this is a good idea.
So as long as the are no 5.3.0 tarballs, the version number can be
5.3.0-cvs. When the tarballs are released, change this to 5.3.1-cvs.
No need for a date, though.

As written above it is not of utter importance as long as we do it
consistantly.

Yes to me that makes sense especially if it is an existing convention
with other software (I wasn't aware of that), the upcoming version number
with '-cvs' appended to it. And I still agree there is no need for there to
be a date except for the releases.

Paul