mdoc DragonFly known version numbers

Sascha Wildner saw at
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 mailing list