Version stuff in CMakeLists.txt

[Dag]

Jaroslaw Staniek skrev den 2017-01-05 10:50:
> On 5 January 2017 at 08:59, Dag <danders at get2net.dk> wrote:
> 
>> Had a closer look at this, and there is some cmake logic when
>> generating calligraversion.h:
>> Any 3.0.x unstable (alpha/beta/rc) will get version 2.99.x. (3.1.x
>> will be 3.0.x, etc)
>> Afaics this scheme only works when a minor version is increased, e.g
>> 3.0.x -> 3.1.0.
>> Is this a disaster? Probably not. If you add a conditional compile
>> e.g in 3.0.1 you cannot test in an unstable release, but that would
>> not be often, I think.
>> 
>> Alternatives:
>> 1) Add a unstable release number as proposed by Rene.
>> 
>> 2) Drop the special unstable numbers (89, 90..) and use the release
>> number as a sequential number.
>> E.g: We released stable 3.0.0, so now the unstable will get 3.0.1
>> (string could be 3.0.1 Alpha) and when we make a new release it
>> would be 3.0.2.
>> This will give unique and increasing version numbers, with the
>> drawback that you can not see from version alone if it is unstable
>> or stable, but we can use version string for that.
>> 
>> Opinions?
> 
> IIRC we release no alphas. Even when we had that, we release no alphas
> the patch version - for x.y.z (z>0).
> x.(y-1).89 is thus compatible with the sequence, it comes after all
> x.(y-1).* stable and before the next stable x.y.z.
Hmmm, do you mean we only release unstable when minor version is 
updated, in which case this will (almost) work?
I think we still have the problem that the version in git will get a 
lower version than the last version released, but as said above we could 
live with that.

> 
> Between 3.0.0 and 3.0.1 there's no extra number needed.
> 
> What we had with the x.y.z.v was special I think. (?)
Yes, forget that.
> 
> ​
> 
>> Dag skrev den 2017-01-04 10:45:
>> 
>>> I can't figure out how this is meant to be used.
>>> 
>>> We have now released 3.0.0.1. Next should probably be 3.0.1.
>>> So I gather current should be an alpha:
>>> Major: 3
>>> Minor: 0
>>> Release: 89
>>> 
>>> But then we would go backwards to Release: 1 when releasing,
>>> and after that we go to Release: 89 again and we can't see
>>> what 3.0.89 actually means as it will crop up for every new 3.0
>>> release.
>>> 
>>> Is it just me being confused, or...
>>> Anybody?
> 
> --
> regards, Jaroslaw Staniek
> 
> KDE:
> : A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers,
> translators
> : and facilitators committed to Free Software development -
> http://kde.org
> Calligra Suite:
> : A graphic art and office suite - http://calligra.org
> Kexi:
> : A visual database apps builder - http://calligra.org/kexi
> Qt Certified Specialist:
> : http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek [1]
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek