[Bioc-devel] package version numbering

Robert Gentleman rgentlem at fhcrc.org
Mon Oct 6 20:48:19 CEST 2008

Sean Davis wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:04 PM, mattia pelizzola
> <mattia.pelizzola at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I did not pay sufficient attention to version numbering till now, and
>> I have a newly submitted package with version 1.0.3 in the devel
>> branch.
>> I just realized that this is not really correct. Also, I'm updating it
>> and I have to decide the new version number.
>> I wonder if and how I could fix this number at this point.
>> On one hand I should have had something like 0.99.3 at this point, but
>> it does not sound good to me to go from 1.0.3 to 0.99.4 ...
>> On the other hand I could go to from 1.0.3 to 1.1.0 (that is going to
>> be 1.2.0 in the release) but still I'm not sure a newly release
>> package can appear with 1.2.0 in the release branch ..
> Hi, Mattia.  The numbering (except for the second value, which needs
> to be odd in development) is arbitrary.  I would go with 1.1.0.

   and never ever go to a lower number - all of the tools for updating 
packages etc presume that higher numbers are newer...


> Sean
> _______________________________________________
> Bioc-devel at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel

Robert Gentleman, PhD
Program in Computational Biology
Division of Public Health Sciences
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N, M2-B876
PO Box 19024
Seattle, Washington 98109-1024
rgentlem at fhcrc.org

More information about the Bioc-devel mailing list