[standards-jig] JEP news

Ben Schumacher ben at blahr.com
Fri Aug 16 08:27:18 UTC 2002


On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Adam Theo wrote:
> Hmm... not sure I like this. I like it until the "If advanced to Final,
> version is revved to 2.0" part. I'd rather see 1.0 be the final, with
> minor and major revisions after that being improvements, extensions, or
> adaptations to the final spec. Not sure what Draft and Active would be
> then, except maybe versioned as "1.draft" and "1.active". I'm thinking
> about doing a similar versioning scheme for PingID, to differentiate
> between stable and dev releases (I don't like the Linux kernel's
> even/odd scheme).

The even/odd scheme is widely accepted, and used by many different
project. That being said, however, what stpeter is suggesting is not an
even/odd scheme.

Using alpha characters (.draft/.active) in version numbers makes it
difficult to identify them as numerically for the purposes cheap version
checks in code. For example, in Apache's codebase, HTTP/1.0 is represented
as 1000, while HTTP/1.1 is 1001. This makes checks for version a simple
integer check, instead of something more complicated like a C string
comparision, or a float.

Cheers,

bs.




More information about the Standards mailing list