r11994@catbus: nickm | 2007-02-28 13:08:52 -0500

 Re-number misnumbered spec sections.  No more having to refer to "the first of two section 6.1s."


svn:r9683

1 files changed, 43 insertions, 47 deletions

diff --git a/version-spec.txt b/version-spec.txt
index 5b9aeee..e17c56b 100644
--- a/version-spec.txt
+++ b/version-spec.txt
@@ -1,49 +1,45 @@
 $Id$
 
-HOW TOR VERSION NUMBERS WORK
-============================
-
-The Old Way
------------
-
-Before 0.1.0, versions were of the format:
-    MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO(status(PATCHLEVEL))?(-cvs)?
-where MAJOR, MINOR, MICRO, and PATCHLEVEL are numbers, status is one
-of "pre" (for an alpha release), "rc" (for a release candidate), or
-"." for a release.  As a special case, "a.b.c" was equivalent to
-"a.b.c.0".  We compare the elements in order (major, minor, micro,
-status, patchlevel, cvs), with "cvs" preceding non-cvs.
-
-We would start each development branch with a final version in mind:
-say, "0.0.8".  Our first pre-release would be "0.0.8pre1", followed by
-(for example) "0.0.8pre2-cvs", "0.0.8pre2", "0.0.8pre3-cvs",
-"0.0.8rc1", "0.0.8rc2-cvs", and "0.0.8rc2".  Finally, we'd release
-0.0.8.  The stable CVS branch would then be versioned "0.0.8.1-cvs",
-and any eventual bugfix release would be "0.0.8.1".
-
-The New Way
------------
-
-After 0.1.0, versions are of the format:
-   MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO(.PATCHLEVEL)(-status_tag)
-The stuff in parenthesis is optional.  As before, MAJOR, MINOR, MICRO,
-and PATCHLEVEL are numbers, with an absent number equivalent to 0.
-All versions should be distinguishable purely by those four
-numbers. The status tag is purely informational, and lets you know how
-stable we think the release is: "alpha" is pretty unstable; "rc" is a
-release candidate; and no tag at all means that we have a final
-release. If the tag ends with "-cvs" or "-dev", you're looking at a
-development snapshot that came after a given release.  If we *do*
-encounter two versions that differ only by status tag, we compare them
-lexically.
-
-Now, we start each development branch with (say) 0.1.1.1-alpha.  The
-patchlevel increments consistently as the status tag changes, for
-example, as in: 0.1.1.2-alpha, 0.1.1.3-alpha, 0.1.1.4-rc 0.1.1.5-rc,
-Eventually, we release 0.1.1.6.  The next patch release is 0.1.1.7.
-
-Between these releases, CVS is versioned with a -cvs tag: after
-0.1.1.1-alpha comes 0.1.1.1-alpha-cvs, and so on. But starting with
-0.1.2.1-alpha-dev, we switched to SVN and started using the "-dev"
-suffix instead of the "-cvs" suffix.
-
+                        HOW TOR VERSION NUMBERS WORK
+
+1. The Old Way
+
+ Before 0.1.0, versions were of the format:
+     MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO(status(PATCHLEVEL))?(-cvs)?
+ where MAJOR, MINOR, MICRO, and PATCHLEVEL are numbers, status is one
+ of "pre" (for an alpha release), "rc" (for a release candidate), or
+ "." for a release.  As a special case, "a.b.c" was equivalent to
+ "a.b.c.0".  We compare the elements in order (major, minor, micro,
+ status, patchlevel, cvs), with "cvs" preceding non-cvs.
+
+ We would start each development branch with a final version in mind:
+ say, "0.0.8".  Our first pre-release would be "0.0.8pre1", followed by
+ (for example) "0.0.8pre2-cvs", "0.0.8pre2", "0.0.8pre3-cvs",
+ "0.0.8rc1", "0.0.8rc2-cvs", and "0.0.8rc2".  Finally, we'd release
+ 0.0.8.  The stable CVS branch would then be versioned "0.0.8.1-cvs",
+ and any eventual bugfix release would be "0.0.8.1".
+
+2. The New Way
+
+ After 0.1.0, versions are of the format:
+    MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO(.PATCHLEVEL)(-status_tag)
+ The stuff in parenthesis is optional.  As before, MAJOR, MINOR, MICRO,
+ and PATCHLEVEL are numbers, with an absent number equivalent to 0.
+ All versions should be distinguishable purely by those four
+ numbers. The status tag is purely informational, and lets you know how
+ stable we think the release is: "alpha" is pretty unstable; "rc" is a
+ release candidate; and no tag at all means that we have a final
+ release. If the tag ends with "-cvs" or "-dev", you're looking at a
+ development snapshot that came after a given release.  If we *do*
+ encounter two versions that differ only by status tag, we compare them
+ lexically.
+
+ Now, we start each development branch with (say) 0.1.1.1-alpha.  The
+ patchlevel increments consistently as the status tag changes, for
+ example, as in: 0.1.1.2-alpha, 0.1.1.3-alpha, 0.1.1.4-rc 0.1.1.5-rc,
+ Eventually, we release 0.1.1.6.  The next patch release is 0.1.1.7.
+
+ Between these releases, CVS is versioned with a -cvs tag: after
+ 0.1.1.1-alpha comes 0.1.1.1-alpha-cvs, and so on. But starting with
+ 0.1.2.1-alpha-dev, we switched to SVN and started using the "-dev"
+ suffix instead of the "-cvs" suffix.