mdoc DragonFly known version numbers
saw at online.de
Mon Mar 6 17:10:36 PST 2006
Francis Gudin wrote:
the file src/gnu/usr.bin/groff/tmac/mdoc.local contains a list of
DragonFly version numbers that can be used within manual pages.
When using these to point a newly introduced feature or some other
important change that would be a good candidate for a HISTORY section in
a manual, do you think that refering to a Release is sufficient, thus
accepting to loose a bit of precision, or would you prefer that we
always try to be the most accurate by naming a Developpement tag ?
Any insight ?
Well the problem with using releases is, what if I put in a feature now
and want to write the HISTORY section? Should I make up the version
number of the future release (my assumption could be wrong because Matt
might skip a minor release number, etc., so I'd have to change it again
when the number is official)?
That's why I started using 3 digit development versions consequently.
The release can always be determined from that number afterwards, while
vice versa (release -> development) this is not possible.
One can argue, though, if using the 3 digit number is really necessary
or if 2 digits (like, 1.5) for development versions is enough.
But if you want to use releases only, then you have to solve the problem
of knowing it in advance. :)
More information about the Docs