On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Lubomir Sedlacik wrote:

: this sounds reasonable on the first time but it doesn't cover all
: possible scenarios.  imagine some crucial fix after RELEASE which is
: pulled up along with the _STABLE name change.

Then it's certainly *not* feasible to match on _STABLE, because someone very
well could be using a source tree before this "crucial fix", which is *also*
named _STABLE.  How do you know which _STABLE is in use?

: also, what about _ALPHA, _BETA, _RCn?  do you want to strip them too?
: the pattern i suggested covers them too.

These are slightly different, mind you, in that _STABLE is tacked onto the
prior version number, and the above are tacked onto the following version
number, i.e.:

...
1.6.1_BETA*
1.6.1_RC*
1.6.1
1.6.1_STABLE   <-- still named "1.6.1_*"
1.6.2_ALPHA*   <-- now named "1.6.2_*"
1.6.2_BETA*
1.6.2_RC*
1.6.2
1.6.2_STABLE
1.6.3_ALPHA*
...

Make sure the pattern you plan to propose works properly given the above.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv@pobox.com>