Version numbering RFC

[Sanjeev Gupta]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Eric S. Raymond <esr at thyrsus.com> wrote:

> My proposal is that we change this before more water has gone under
> the dam.  That is:
>
> 1. VERSION should correspond to the last tag, not tne next one.
>
> 2. It should *not* be bumped when we ship 0.9.6 - that will bring it
>    into sync with the new convention.
>
> 3. After 0.9.6, I will add logic to bump the contents of VERSION after
>    shipping to devel/release, with --major, --minor, and --point
>    options.
>

I can see commit 76e974cf

sanjeev at X201wily:~/SRC/ntpsec$ git show 76e974cf
commit 76e974cf16da204c6da73d6fa204677d94990088
Author: Mark Atwood <mark.atwood at ntpsec.org>
Date:   Fri Dec 30 21:16:45 2016 +0000

    version 0.9.6

    Signed-off-by: Mark Atwood <mark.atwood at ntpsec.org>

but
sanjeev at X201wily:~/SRC/ntpsec$ git describe
NTPsec_0_9_5_1-547-gb6b2dd0

Is this a missing tag in git?
-- 
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208     http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20161231/472fe5bb/attachment.html>