Re: Revision numbers

[Ralph Lange <Ralph.Lange@bessy.de>]

We have been using the fourth digit to number our own in-house patches. 
This seemed the intended way, as .../configure/CONFIG_BASE_VERSION calls 
the fourth tag UPDATE_NAME and UPDATE_LEVEL, assuming these are 
site-specific to create things like 3.14.8.aps1 3.14.8.aps2 etc.
I would see an official 3.14.8.1 breaking the official numbering 
concept, but for BESSY I could adapt to a fourth "official" number by 
adding a fifth one.
Well - actually you should introduce  a new intermediate level in 
CONFIG_BASE_VERSION, leaving the old tags for UPDATE_NAME and 
UPDATE_LEVEL intact.
Please remember to update all files under .../configure that use the 
definitions from CONFIG_BASE_VERSION, otherwise shared library search 
paths will be wrong (again), at least for HP-UX.
Ralph
(just came in for a night shift - sorry for the delay)


Andrew Johnson wrote:

> We need to make a new release with the latest bug fixes incorporated. 
> The majority view (not unanimous though) here at APS is that we should 
> call this R3.14.8.1 rather than R3.14.9 since it really is just a 
> patch release with no new functionality included.  If this numbering 
> is likely to cause any problems please reply ASAP, as otherwise this 
> might happen later today.
> - Andrew