[cvsnt] Thoughts on version numbering

[Tony Hoyle]

I've been giving some thought to the version numbering system we have at the
moment.

Originally it was planned to track the Unix CVS builds (cvsnt started out just
as a patch to Unix CVS) so the numbering system was based around that ie.
cvs verson 1.11.1 cvsnt version 3.  However time marches on and that's no
longer true.  The 'build' system has basically taken over any version
numbering anyway.

What I propose is that the numbering system is completerly revamped, so
there's also some idea of 'stable' versioning too (I won't be maintaining too
branches as I've tried that in the past and it doesn't scale, but there are
definately points in the development where the product is more stable than
others).

I can either start again 1.0 or leapfrog to 2.0.  I'd rather avoid numbers
like 1.12 to minimise crossover with the Unix CVS version numbers.  I suggest
something like <major release>.<stable version>.<patchlevel> and doing away
with build numbers altogerther.  The idea is if a particular version is
declare 'stable' (like the late 57 builds or as I hope the latest build is) I
up the stable version and reset the patchlevel, so that everyone knows that
that's the latest 'safe' install.  For this to happen to a release it should
have no major or critical bugs filed against it for at least a week after
release.

I'm really just brainstorming at the moment...  any input would be welcome.

Tony