On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:11:03PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
We've discussed this in #ghc, and we think it's best to use 4 component version numbers so Cabal's snapshot (== append $date) version numbers do what we want and fit in with us following the proposed policy.
Just to clarify, what I meant by this is: Given we are going to use the a.b.c.d scheme where a.b is the major API, we should use version numbers like 2.1.0.0 rather than 2.1 (I wasn't aware of anyone being against the a.b.c.d scheme when I wrote the original mail). If instead we decide to use a.b.c where a is the major API, then we should use 2.1.0 instead rather than 2.1. We do actually need to pick one or the other really quite quickly for the GHC 6.8.1 release, although I don't think getting it wrong and changing our minds later will cause any major problems. My impression from those opinions I've read is that 4-component is more likely to be the concensus. Thanks Ian