Sally Schaffner wrote:
>
> Subject:
>
> It should probably be a string because then things like
> "1-0" or "1-0a" or "R313.1-0" can be used.
>
> > 2) Should there be rules about how version numbers are assigned?
>
> It will be very difficult to come up with rules that will
> be flexible enough to accomodate all types of EPICS
> installations especially since they are so varied. It is
> probably best to let each institution come up with versioning
> rules that make sense for them.
>
> > 3) What about all the existing record support modules?
>
> The field should default to something like "1-0" or
> some other obvious baseline type nomenclature. Then
> it can build from there.
Maybe it is better to just leave the string null to indicate never set.
Marty
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: EPICS r3.13 field VERS and RTYP Marty Kraimer
- Next:
RE: EPICS r3.13 field VERS Jeff Hill
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
<1998>
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: EPICS r3.13 field VERS and RTYP Chip WATSON
- Next:
RE: EPICS r3.13 field VERS Jeff Hill
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
<1998>
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|