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

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?
Ryan