On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:37:23 +0900, Francis Hwang <sera / fhwang.net> wrote:
> I don't think there's any consensus as to what version numbers mean.
> In the case of Lafcadio I can tell you that although it's not done,
> it's also used on real systems handling real users and non-trivial
> volume. (I believe the same can be said for ActiveRecord, too.)
> 
> The site where I mainly work gets 3m hits/month; that's backed by
> Lafcadio. In fact I make sure to always have a stable bugfix branch
> and a dev branch so users can choose their level of risk. I use the
> stable bugfix branch for that main site.
> 
> Francis
> 
> Alexey Verkhovsky <alex / verk.info> wrote in message news:<1089461690.1011.10.camel / localhost.localdomain>...
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the responses.
> >
> > What should I make of the somewhat scary fact that most of the
> > components mentioned, including ALL persistence layer stuff, have
> > version numbers 0.something?
> >
> > I thought, by convention, the first version that project developers
> > consider "production-grade" would be numbered 1.0. Am I wrong?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alexey Verkhovsky

to start with, http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html

FreeBSD (perhaps the *BSDs in general) seem to have defined a standard
for what versioning should mean.  not just release vs. current vs.
stable, but also their numbering.

so patterns exist to stablize what versioning should constitute.

i dislike dating because it doesn't actually tell you anything.  a
next day release tells you as much as a version++ .  but versioning
should _add_ relevent information to that.

-z