gnupic: Thread: gputils 1.0.0 Release Candidate 1

Hi Peter,

> Sure, just like 1.0.0.0.1 is sufficient. My point is that the number
> of zeros between those two ones is quite arbitrary.

A large number of projects have settled on x.y.z because it gives a
useful big, medium, or small indication of the level of changes just by
glancing at the two versions.  42 versus 43 could be anything, 2.2.13
versus 3.0.1 would be of the magnitude of one big change.

Cheers, Ralph.

Hello,

First I installed gputils 1.0.0 than I compiled the freshest svn
version of SDCC. After I tried one of my SDCC project and it is
working well. It is written for 16F690. I think there shouldn't be any
serious problem with gputils.
Congratulation for step forward.

Zsolt

2012/12/9 Borut Ražem ####@####.####
> Dear gputils users,
>
> gputils-1.0.0 Release Candidate 1 is available at
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/gputils/files/gputils/1.0.0/gputils-1.0.0_RC1.tar.gz.
> Widows 32bit setup package is at
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/gputils/files/gputils-win32/1.0.0/gputils-1.0.0_RC1.exe.
>
> This gputils 1.0.0 includes the last big missing functionality comparing
> with MPASM(X): support for nested WHILE loops. It also includes many
> improvements in listing file and error message generation. Some bugs were
> fixed, hopefully not many new introduced.
>
> Please test the release candidates as much as possible and let me know about
> ANY results: pass or fail!
>
> Final release is planned for end of year 2012, but it depends on number of
> critical bugs found.
>
> If you find regressions or other bugs, please report them to the bug tracker
> at SourceForge. Also, feel free to give feedback here on the mailing list.
>
> Borut
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
>



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://galzsolt.zzl.org

Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > Sure, just like 1.0.0.0.1 is sufficient. My point is that the number
> > of zeros between those two ones is quite arbitrary.
> 
> A large number of projects have settled on x.y.z because it gives a
> useful big, medium, or small indication of the level of changes just
> by glancing at the two versions.

I do not disagree with making gputils 1.0 at this point, but I for
one don't consider 0.15 vs. 1.0 to be a "big" level change. A lot
of code is still the same. (That is not a bad thing.)


> 42 versus 43 could be anything, 2.2.13 versus 3.0.1 would be of the
> magnitude of one big change.

I hope it is clear that "big" is subjective. So the numbers really
can't succeed in accomplishing what you and Alain suggest. I sure
wish it were that simple, but I don't think it is.


//Peter

I'm following the "gputils version number" discussion with big interest, 
and now I think is the time for me to write some words.

I can agree and disagree with all your comments in the same time. I 
think that this is an other never ending and pointless war in sense 
"which editor is better?" or "which OS is better?". I'll just repeat the 
famous Latin maxim once again: " De gustibus non est disputandum".

I'll take a pragmatical approach to cut this Gordian knot by asking 2 
questions an responding them by myself. I know, your answers might be 
different, but I'm Alexander the Great in this case ;-) :
- Q: Is the current numbering scheme broken?
   A:  I don't think so: I'm not saying that it is perfect but it worked 
in the past and I don't see why it couldn't work for the future.

- Q: Are the benefits of the new numbering scheme big enough to justify 
the change?
   A: Again, I don't think so. You also proved it, since you couldn't 
find a common agreement.

Now it is time for an other phrase: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But since nothing is black or white, I have a small change in my mind: 
until now the first number was 0 and the other two were used, but from 
now on the first two will be used and the third one will be zero: it can 
be used as internal development "releases" like in sdcc project or as 
small correction of the final release, for example in packaging or in 
supporting documentation (README, NEWS, ...).

Now please finish this pointless discussion and do some testing of the 
release candidate instead.

No offense,
Borut


On 10. 12. 2012 02:25, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Borut Ražem wrote:
>> gputils-1.0.0 Release Candidate 1 is available
> Lovely!
>
> A small idea: Skip the last version number digit and go for 1.0?
>
>
> //Peter
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
>
>