How should a revision level be interpreted?
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 15:46:37 PST
From: Peter Langston <psl>
Subject: How should a revision level be interpreted?
Forwarded-by: bostic@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic)
Forwarded-by: email@example.com (John P. Kole)
Forwarded-by: lindsey (Norman Lindsey)
Forwarded-by: "Jim Littlefield" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
How should a revision level be interpreted? Here's a quick guide
for anyone short of a clue:
0.1 WE GOT A REALLY GREAT NEW WAY TO DO THINGS !!!
<0.9 Not ready for prime time.
0.9 We think it works, but we won't bet our lives on it.
1.0 Management is on our case; seems like a low risk.
1.01 Okay, we knew about that. All known bugs are fixed.
1.02 Fixes bugs you won't see in 27,000 years, i.e. more than
three times the age of the universe.
1.03 Fixes bugs in the bug fixes.
1.04 All right, this REALLY fixes all known bugs.
1.05 Fixes bugs introduced in rev 1.04.
1.1 A new crew hired to write documentation.
1.11 From now on, no comma after "i.e." or "e.g.".
1.2 Somebody actually changed a functional feature.
2.0 New crew hired to write software. Old crew blamed for bugs.
2.01 New crew sending out resumes to placement agencies.
3.0 Re-write the software in another language, go back ten squares.
... return to line 0.1
-- email@example.com (Mark Thorson)
© 1995 Peter Langston