Re: Conventions for release numbering

On Monday 13 June 2005 00:49, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:13:15PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote:
> >>> (No, wait, I'm not starting a release numbering discussion.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If we have release 8.0.3 where 8 is the Major releae,
> >>> 0 is the minor release and 3 is the version (revision?),
> >>> how would we refer to a generic release number:
> >>>
> >>>  postgresql-M.m.v ? postgresql-M.m.r ?
> >>>
> >>> Is this our convention?  Do either of these work?
> >>
> >> Assuming v==version and r==release, is there a big difference between
> >> the two?  How are each defined?
> >
> > That is my question!  What do we conventionally use?
>
> Neither and both?  Since I don't know the difference (if any) between the
> final being considered r(elease) or v(ersion) ...
>
> Its always just been 'Major'.'Minor'.'Bug Fixes' ... so is 'Bug Fixes' ==
> version or release?
>

My understanding is that we have always followed "Major-Minor-Revision".

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL