[racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun

From: Ryan Culpepper (ryanc at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 25 09:56:45 EST 2013

On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Here's the full comment:
>     The version string has one of the forms:
>        X.Y
>        X.Y.Z     Z != 0
>        X.Y.Z.W   W != 0
>     where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
>     exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999.  Y>=90 means that this is
>     working towards {X+1}.0, and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
>     {X+1}.0; Z>=900 means working towards X.{Y+1}, and X.Y.Z as an
>     alpha release.
> Then intent is that when Z and W are 0, the string form of the version
> number is just X.Y, not X.Y.Z.W.
> How about this clarification?
>           ... and X.Y (i.e., Z=0 and W=0, so Z and W are
>     omitted from the string form) ...

That's not the part that needs clarifying. I think that fact that the 
string form drops final zeros is clear from lines 2-4.

The part that needs clarifying is how to choose the version number for 
the alpha releases leading up to version {X+1}.0. (Really, how to choose 
alpha version numbers in general, since I've had similar problems in the 
past.) From this statement, "X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for 
{X+1}.0" (Y>=90 already stated), I would expect that 5.91 would be a 
fine alpha version number for 6.0. Is it? If not, what should the alpha 
version number be?


Posted on the dev mailing list.