Version numbering RFC

[Mark Atwood]

the tags were pushed.  maybe git pull --tags  ?

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:25 AM Sanjeev Gupta <ghane0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 <+65%209855%201208>     http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at ntpsec.org
> http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170101/8328e404/attachment.html>