From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from goalie.tycho.ncsc.mil (goalie [144.51.3.250]) by tarius.tycho.ncsc.mil (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p6QFUBlf006845 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:30:11 -0400 Received: from exchange10.columbia.tresys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id p6QFUAP9015196 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:30:10 GMT Message-ID: <4E2EDD81.8080608@tresys.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:30:09 -0400 From: Steve Lawrence MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SELinux Subject: Bumping Version Numbers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov A while ago ago we discussed bumping the minor version number and resetting the revision version number when we do a release [1]. We are now preparing for a release and wanted some feedback before we bumped the version numbers. We're thinking of only bumping minor version numbers if the revision version number is non-zero. So the version numbers will become: checkpolicy-2.1.0 libselinux-2.1.0 libsepol-2.1.0 libsemanage-2.1.0 policycoreutils-2.1.0 sepolgen-1.1.0 We could alternatively always bump minor version numbers even if the revision number was zero (i.e. no changes since the last release). This has the advantange that all releases share the same version number. If we do that, it might make sense to bump sepolgen to 2.1.0 this release as well, unless there is some significance between 1.x and 2.x with sepolgen. Thoughts? - Steve [1] http://marc.info/?t=129962368300001&r=1&w=2 -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.