Branch version numbering in Store

In the CVS world the convention is that there's never a published
"version" with two numbers. So 1234.1, 1234.2, 1234.3 etc are all
identifier of branches off 1234. First version on a branch 1 would be
marked 1234.1.1 and grow to 1234.1.2, 1234.1.3 etc. A branch of a branch
version 1234.1.3 would be starting with version 1234.1.3.1.1, a second
branch at the same point would have 1234.1.3.2.1

Basically each branch effectively adds 2 more numbers to the original
version.

Joerg Beekmann wrote:

Any notation that distinguishes the two cases would be an improvement, I
like my idea but that could just be pride of parenthood.  Is there any
chance of either of these being adopted? If it will help my case I'll
add it as a Store setting. Then users could have a choice of policy.
I'll note I was pleasantly surprised by how well factored the various
store policies are. That factoring makes this a trivial change whatever
approach is adopted.


Joerg
  branch
> version 1234.1.3 would be starting with version 1234.1.3.1.1, a second
> branch at the same point would have 1234.1.3.2.1
>
> Basically each branch effectively adds 2 more numbers to the original
> version.
>
> Joerg Beekmann wrote:
>
> > When looking at versions in Store is 1234.1.1 a branch of 1234 or is
it
> > a branch of 1234.1? What about 1234.1.1.1.1 what is it a branch of?
In
> > case this has ever bothered anyone else I've attached a small
> > modification to BranchingVersionPolicy that disambiguates the two.
If
> > you load these methods the default version numbers will be as
follows: it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Joerg
> >
> >
> >
> >