OpenSolaris W Hercules

[Mike Schwab]

I suggest that an official release with OpenSolaris support be issued,
so potential users do not need to get a snapshot.
3.07?

--
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?

[Harold Grovesteen-2]

I like that suggestion.

Mike Schwab wrote:

>I suggest that an official release with OpenSolaris support be issued,
>so potential users do not need to get a snapshot.
>3.07?
>
>  
>

[halfmeg]

> Harold Grovesteen <h.grovsteen@...> wrote:

> I like that suggestion.
 
> > Mike Schwab wrote:
 
> > I suggest that an official release with OpenSolaris support be
> > issued, so potential users do not need to get a snapshot.

> >3.07?

So do I.  It would bring in the 3705 changes into an 'Official' release as well.

Phil

[kerravon86]

Is there a reason that the versions only increment,
by one, at the last level, suggesting a bug fix
release, instead of at least changing the second
digit, so that people know that new features have
also been added, even if the top level remains as
3 (suggesting that there has been no breaking of
the interface)?

ie I'd much rather see a 3.10 myself, after god
knows how much went into creating opensolaris
support, nevermind the rest of the work that has
been done since then. 4.00 could reflect the
addition of a new environment being supported
rather than an interface change too.

BFN.  Paul.




--- In hercules-390@..., Harold Grovesteen <h.grovsteen@...> wrote:

>
> I like that suggestion.
>
> Mike Schwab wrote:
>
> >I suggest that an official release with OpenSolaris support be issued,
> >so potential users do not need to get a snapshot.
> >3.07?
> >
> >  
> >
>

[Jay Maynard-2]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 11:16:51AM -0000, kerravon86 wrote:
> Is there a reason that the versions only increment, by one, at the last
> level, suggesting a bug fix release, instead of at least changing the
> second digit, so that people know that new features have also been added,
> even if the top level remains as 3 (suggesting that there has been no
> breaking of the interface)?

Hercules version numbering follows the IBM definition of
version.release.modlevel. The version number is incremented when a major
rewrite is done; the release number is incremented at other release times;
and the modlevel is added and/or incremented when a bugfix release is made.

Thus, going from 3.06 to 3.07 does mean new features have been added. A
maintenance release would be 3.06.1.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC                   http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com      http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org               (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[kerravon86]

--- In hercules-390@..., Jay Maynard <jmaynard@...> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 11:16:51AM -0000, kerravon86 wrote:
> > Is there a reason that the versions only increment, by one, at the last
> > level, suggesting a bug fix release, instead of at least changing the
> > second digit, so that people know that new features have also been added,
> > even if the top level remains as 3 (suggesting that there has been no
> > breaking of the interface)?
>
> Hercules version numbering follows the IBM definition of
> version.release.modlevel. The version number is incremented when a major
> rewrite is done; the release number is incremented at other release times;
> and the modlevel is added and/or incremented when a bugfix release is made.
>
> Thus, going from 3.06 to 3.07 does mean new features have been added. A
> maintenance release would be 3.06.1.

Well all that makes sense to me, except for the
leading 0 before the 6, which obstensibly looks
like a release number of 0. Why only there and
why only 1 digit? So we're basically on 3.6.0
or V3R6M0.

BFN.  Paul.