# HG changeset patch # User Oleksandr Gavenko # Date 1322426980 -7200 # Node ID 6acae85ed54b524c03b9ee0345bc53601de4b885 # Parent 6b89ccc3d36a60573998598ebb11fe46eec7352d small fix diff -r 6b89ccc3d36a -r 6acae85ed54b devel-versioning.rst --- a/devel-versioning.rst Sun Nov 27 21:34:11 2011 +0200 +++ b/devel-versioning.rst Sun Nov 27 22:49:40 2011 +0200 @@ -30,11 +30,12 @@ There discussed: * Is it essential to update major version if significant change made for - licence? Answer: NO! + licence? Answer: **NO**! GPLv3 is a big deal spread out over the whole GNU project, but not a big deal for GDB in particular. - * Is it right follow date version schema regardless major changes? Answer: NO! + * Is it right follow date version schema regardless major changes? Answer: + **NO**! Many OS distribution encode year in versions but versions does not present featureset but package set instead. @@ -161,7 +162,7 @@ Why do not do this on success build: * You can have several build machine which may concurrently update version. - * There not exist tools for easy querying for status of build (as ok/fail, + * There does not exist tools for easy querying for status of build (as ok/fail, build configuration, date, coverage, lint checks, etc). * Some part of development team may not have permission for bumping version and after build they must revert some automatically updated files.